<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Design of Sampling Strategy Measurements of Co2/Carbonate Properties

Véronique Guglielmi, Franck Touratier, Catherine Goyet

► To cite this version:

Véronique Guglielmi, Franck Touratier, Catherine Goyet. Design of Sampling Strategy Measurements of Co2/Carbonate Properties. International Journal of Oceanography & Aquaculture, 2022, 6 (3), pp.1-11. 10.23880/ijoac-16000227. hal-04414975

HAL Id: hal-04414975

https://univ-perp.hal.science/hal-04414975v1

Submitted on 24 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Design of Sampling Strategy Measurements of Co₂/Carbonate Properties

Guglielmi V, Touratier F and Goyet C*

ESPACE-DEV, Univ Montpellier, IRD, Univ Antilles, Univ Guyane, Univ Réunion, Univ. Perpignan
Via Domitia, France

*Corresponding author: Catherine Goyet, ESPACE-DEV, Univ. Perpignan Via Domitia, 52
avenue Paul Alduy, 66860 Perpignan, France; Email: cgoyet@univ-perp.fr

Research Article

Volume 6 Issue 3

Received Date: July 30, 2022

Published Date: September 21, 2022

DOI: 10.23880/ijoac-16000227

## Abstract

In order to study a (terrestrial or oceanic) field area, scientists need first to design a sampling strategy. At first, when nothing is known about this field, there is no other choice than to sample as much as possible wherever it is possible. Then, as something becomes known about some properties of the field, it becomes possible to use mathematical equations to design a scientifically sound sampling strategy based upon the various constraints (aimed accuracy, number of samples/measurements, etc.), of the study. Based upon available sea-surface salinity and sea-surface temperature data, this work shows a practical and simple way to design a sampling strategy with known accuracy for total CO₂ and total alkalinity measurements in sea-surface waters. The results indicate the need to continue to sample the sea-surface waters but with specific designs of sampling strategy to reach the scientific objectives with known maximum error.

**Keywords:** Underway Measurements; Sampling Strategy; Interpolation Error

## Introduction

In order to prepare a cruise to study total alkalinity ($A_T$) and total CO₂ ($C_T$), it is essential to determine the minimum number of samples to be measured (on board and/or on shore). In order to do so, it is necessary to precisely know the constraints in terms of the maximum number of samples measurable (number limited by the number of sample bottles and/or time of measurement of each sample), and of the maximum interpolation error required to achieve the scientific objectives (with which accuracy do processes need to be known to be scientifically meaningful?).

The objective of this work is to show, based upon an example using available *in situ* data sets, that it is possible to scientifically (with known uncertainty) design a sampling strategy. For instance, here, we will assume we are planning to sample surface seawater along a cruise track between Hobart (Tasmania) and Dumont D'Urville (Antarctica), for $A_T$ and $C_T$ measurements in the SubAntarctic and Antarctic waters. Such approach is, of course, applicable as well to

vertical profiles as at stations when sampling throughout a water column.

Thus, as for any scientific work, the first thing to do is to find out from previous studies, the order of magnitude of the properties of these surface seawaters as well as their spatial and temporal variabilities. It is also important to determine if some properties can be related to others.

In our example, although the ocean area studied is a rough one with difficult access, repeated measurements performed each year at the same period (austral summer) allowed Brandon M, et al. to determine a relationship between $A_T$ and sea-surface salinity (SSS) and sea-surface temperature (SST), as well as a relationship between $C_T$ and SSS, SST and the atmospheric partial pressure of CO₂ (which takes into account the temporal rise of anthropogenic carbon).

Such relationships are particularly important since $A_T$ and $C_T$ cannot be sampled/measured at the same high rate of the SST and SSS measurements. Thus, in general
such relationships may allow scientists to gain significant knowledge about A_T and C_T properties in areas where they cannot be measured but where SSS and SST are known.

Consequently, here, to determine the number of samples to be collected for A_T and C_T measurements in the Antarctic and SubAntarctic surface waters, it is essential to fully understand the SST and SSS properties as well as their variability's. For instance, recently, based upon detailed previous studies [1, 2], Gugliemi V, et al. [3] further showed that over the transect Hobart - Dumont D'Urville the SSS variability is usually much higher than that of SST, especially in the SubAntarctic area. Consequently, SST and SSS properties should ideally be best sampled separately (not simultaneously), with less SST measurements than SSS ones.

Here, using these same underway 2010 SSS and SST data sets with the knowledge of both A_T and T as functions of SSS and SST, we will show how to design appropriate sampling patterns for A_T and C_T according to the accuracies of the different properties to be studied. We will then compare these results with the measured properties.

# Materials and Methods

## Data Sets

Here, as example, we use the archived (February 19-23, 2010) data set of sea-surface (at around 5m) SSS and SST [3]. These data are part of the SURVOSTRAL program [4]. They were measured when the supply ship "l'Astrolabe" was sailing from Hobart, Tasmania (43°S 147°E) to the French Antarctic base Dumont D'Urville (66°S, 140°E). These thermosalinograph (TSG) data recorded every minute are freely available [5,6].

As a reminder SSS was measured with an accuracy of ± 0.005 [1]. According to the manufacturer SST was measured with an accuracy of ± 0.001°C.

Figure 1 shows the result of the February 2010, 5978 measurements of these two properties (SST, SSS) along the cruise track from Hobart (Tasmania) to Dumont D'Urville (Antarctica) within the latitudinal interval [46.2°S - 64.1°S], corresponding to the SubAntarctic and Antarctic regions.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: SST(°C) and SSS measured every minute as a function of latitude between 46.2°S and 64.1°S.</figcaption></figure>

## Method

In order to determine appropriate sampling patterns for underway surface ocean measurements of A_T and C_T, here we will need to combine two sets of equations; ones from Brandon M, et al. [7], which provide the relationships of A_T as a function of SSS and SST, and of C_T also as a function of SSS, SST, and the atmospheric CO₂ fugacity (fCO₂ atm), and others from Davis D, et al. [8], that provide a way to determine the position of the samples to be collected.

Thus, below we remind briefly the main equations of Brandon M, et al. [7], as well as those of Davis D, et al. [8]. Then in the following section we provide a concrete application of

these equations to determine appropriate sampling patterns for the CO₂/carbonate properties.

## Equations from Brandon M, et al.

Within this ocean area, using data from the years 2005 through 2019, the authors Brandon M, et al. [7] showed that as a mean over these years, total alkalinity ($A_T^{mean}$) and total CO₂ ($C_T^{mean}$) concentrations, can be quantified with simple multi-linear functions of sea-surface temperature (SST) and salinity (SSS), as follows:

$$A_T^{mean} = a^{mean} + b^{mean} * SSS + c^{mean} * SST \quad (1)$$
with a<sup>mean</sup> = 762.69; b<sup>mean</sup> = 45.28; c<sup>mean</sup> = -2.15 (for both the SubAntarctic and Antarctic regions; [46.2°; 64.1°S]) with an A<sub>T</sub> RMSE of 6,8 µmol.kg<sup>-1</sup>.

And

$$C_T^{\text{mean}} = a^{\text{mean}} + b^{\text{mean}} * \text{SSS} + c^{\text{mean}} * \text{SST} + d^{\text{mean}} * (\text{fCO}_2^{\text{atm}} - 280) \quad (2)$$

With a<sup>mean</sup>=1431.45; b<sup>mean</sup>=20.68; c<sup>mean</sup>=-10.45; d<sup>mean</sup>=0.56 for the SubAntarctic region ([46.2°S; 53.5°S]) with a C<sub>T</sub> RMSE of 8,9µmol.kg<sup>-1</sup>,

With a<sup>mean</sup>=-269.74; b<sup>mean</sup>=70.42; c<sup>mean</sup>=-6.27; d<sup>mean</sup>=0.51 for the Antarctic region ([53.5°S; 64.1°S]) with a C<sub>T</sub> RMSE of 8,5µmol.kg<sup>-1</sup>.

## Equations from Davis D, et al.

Based upon the fact that a maximum error function can be determined from both the spacing and variability functions of a signal, one has to calculate the variability function and adjust the spacing function to minimize the maximum error function.

## Variability Function

By definition, the signal variability (VarY(X)), of a signal Y as a function of X, is similar to the second derivative of the signal and can be calculated as:

$$\text{VarY}(X) = 2 * \left[ \frac{\Delta^{+}Y}{\Delta^{+}X} - \frac{\Delta^{-}Y}{\Delta^{-}X} \right] / \left( \Delta^{+}X + \Delta^{-}X \right) \quad (3)$$

with Δ<sup>+</sup>Y=Y<sub>i+1</sub>-Y<sub>i</sub>; Δ<sup>+</sup>Y=Y<sub>i</sub>-Y<sub>i-1</sub>; Δ<sup>+</sup>X=X<sub>i+1</sub>-X<sub>i</sub>; Δ<sup>+</sup>X=X<sub>i</sub>-X<sub>i-1</sub>; for i= 2, ..., N-1

Where the first "i" starts at the second measured point, up to the one before last.

## Maximum Error Functions

The maximum error of interpolation of a regular sampling pattern of N samples points in an interval [Xsi, Xei] is given by:

$$\text{MaxErrEven}(N, \text{MaxBndY}(X), XsI, XeI) = \left( \frac{\text{MaxBndY}(X)}{8} \right) \cdot \left( \frac{(XeI - XsI)^2}{(N-1)} \right) \quad (4)$$

Where MaxBndY(X) represents the maximum of the bound (BndY(X)) of the variability function.

The maximum error of interpolation of a semi-balanced

error sampling pattern of N samples points in an interval [Xsi, Xei] is given by:

$$\text{MaxErrBal}(N, XsI, XeI) = \left(1/\left[8(N-1)^2\right]\right) \cdot \left(\int_{XsI}^{XeI} \sqrt{\text{BndY}(X)} \, dX\right)^2 \quad (5)$$

## Sample Size

Reversely, using these above Equations (2&3), it is possible to determine the minimum number of samples (sample size) needed to reach an aimed maximum interpolation error (MaxErrY) within a given interval [Xsi, Xei].

Where there is a constant bound (CstBnd) of the signal variability function, the number of samples can be calculated from Equation 2 as:

$$\text{SampleSizeEven}(\text{MaxErrY}, \text{CstBnd}, XsI, XeI) = (XeI - XsI) \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\text{CstBnd}}{8 * \text{MaxErrY}}} + 1 \quad (6)$$

Where the bound of the signal variability function varies, the number of samples can be calculated from Eq.3 as:

$$\text{SampleSizeBal}(\text{MaxErrY}, XsI, XeI) = \frac{\int_{XsI}^{XeI} \sqrt{\text{BndY}(X)} dX}{\sqrt{8 * \text{MaxErrY}}} + 1 \quad (7)$$

## Sample Locations

Within an interval where the bound of the signal variability is constant, the samples will be evenly distributed along the x axis. And within an interval where the bound of the signal variability varies, the samples will be distributed according to the following "Distribute" function:

$$\text{Distribute}(M, A(x)) = \{x_i \text{ i=0,..., M-1}, x_0 = a \le x_i \le b = x_{M-1}\} \quad (8)$$

Such that A(x<sub>i+1</sub>) - A(x<sub>i</sub>) = (A(b) - A(a))/(M-1), with i = 0, ..., M-1.

Where M represents the number of points to be distributed within the interval [a, b],

$$\text{and } A(x) = \int_a^x \sqrt{\text{BndY}(t)} \, dt \text{ in this interval } [a, b].$$

## Results and Discussion

In order to determine the variability of the A<sub>T</sub> and C<sub>T</sub> over the latitudes 46.2°S through 64.1°S, the first step is to calculate A<sub>T</sub><sup>mean</sup> and C<sub>T</sub><sup>mean</sup> from equations 1 and 2, respectively.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2:** Calculated $A_T^{mean}$ (µmol.kg⁻¹) and $C_T^{mean}$ (µmol.kg⁻¹) from equations 1 and 2, respectively, as a function of latitude between 46.2°S and 64.1°S (from the SubAntarctic to the Antarctic areas)</figcaption></figure>

These results (Figure 2) are then used to compute their variability (eq. 3; Figures 3 & 4) and to determine their

variability bounds (Figures 3 & 4).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3:** Variability and variability bounds for $A_T^{mean}$ as a function of latitude South, a) full $A_T$ variability scale, b) zoom on the $A_T$ variability scale.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4:** Variability and variability bounds for $C_T^{mean}$ as a function of latitude South, a) full $C_T$ variability scale, b) zoom on the $C_T$ variability scale.</figcaption></figure>
Since $A_T$ in surface seawater is mainly related to salinity, its variability closely follows that of salinity. The variability of $C_T$ also follows that of SSS but is significantly mitigated by that of SST.

Thus, the variability bounds are:

$$ \text{Bnd}A_T^{\text{mean}}(L) = \{[46.2, 95000], [46.8, 95000], [46.85, 2500000], [47.1, 2500000], [48.0, 40000], [50.5, 40000], [51.2, 75000], [52.5, 62000], [53.2, 14000], [60.5, 14000], [60.8, 30000], [64.1, 40000]\}, $$

and

$$ \text{Bnd}C_T^{\text{mean}}(L) = \{[46.2, 64000], [46.9, 64000], [46.93, 1170000], [46.96, 1170000], [46.98, 67000], [49.25, 67000], [49.7, 104000], [51.3, 116000], [53.2, 33000], [60.0, 33000], [62.3, 65000], [64.1, 65000]\}. $$

As expected, the variability bounds of $A_T$ and $C_T$ are significantly different. However, in very particular cases they may be similar. Yet, the shapes of these bounds are relatively similar, with a minimum (for both $A_T$ and $C_T$) in the latitudinal area [53.2°S - 60.0°S], in the Antarctic zone [9,10].

## Determination of the Aimed Maximum Interpolation Error

Knowing that the accuracy of the $A_T$ measurements at sea is $3.5\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, a reasonable maximum interpolated error could be $3.3\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, such that the maximum total error over the whole transect would be $6.8\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, similar to the RMSE of $A_T^{\text{mean}}$.

Similarly, knowing that the accuracy of the $C_T$ measurements at sea is $2.7\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, a maximum interpolated error could be up to $5.8\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, such that the maximum total error over the whole transect would be $8.5\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, similar to the RMSE of $C_T^{\text{mean}}$.

Of course, the choice of the aimed maximum interpolated error could be different according to the given objectives of the scientific studies. For instance, local process studies in ocean acidification [11-14] would require much more smaller errors than global modeling studies [15-18].

## Determination of the Minimum Sample Size

Within the latitudinal interval [46.2°S; 64.1°S], the minimum sample size for $A_T$ measurements, determined using eq.7 for a maximum interpolation error of $3.3\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, is 831. Table 1 summarizes the results assuming different aimed interpolation errors from $1\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$ to $4\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$.

<table><caption>**Table 1:** Number of samples required to reach an aimed $A_T^{\text{mean}}$ maximum interpolation error.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Latitudinal interval</th><th rowspan="2">N SSS & SST measured</th><th colspan="8">N for an Aimed AT Maximum Interpolation Error (µmol.kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>1.5</th><th>2</th><th>2.5</th><th>3</th><th>3.3</th><th>3.4</th><th>4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>42.2°S - 64.1°S</td><td>5978</td><td>1508</td><td>1232</td><td>1067</td><td>954</td><td>871</td><td>831</td><td>818</td><td>755</td></tr></tbody></table>

These results indicate that according to the aimed $A_T^{\text{mean}}$ maximum interpolation error, the number of samples for $A_T^{\text{mean}}$ measurements can be between 4 and 7 times less than that of the SSS and SST measurements. Yet, this represents a lot of samples, more than 4.5 times the number of $A_T^{\text{mean}}$ samples measured (185) during the 2010 cruise.

Within the latitudinal interval [46.2°S; 64.1°S], the minimum sample size for $C_T$ measurements, determined using eq.7 for a maximum interpolation error of $5.8\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, is 619. Table 2 summarizes the results assuming different aimed interpolation errors from $2.5\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$ to $6\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$.

<table><caption>**Table 2:** Number of samples required to reach an aimed $C_T^{\text{mean}}$ maximum interpolation error.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Latitudinal Interval</th><th rowspan="2">N SSS & SST Measured</th><th colspan="8">N for an Aimed CT Maximum Interpolation Error (µmol.kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr><tr><th>2.5</th><th>3</th><th>3.5</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>5.5</th><th>5.8</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>42.2°S - 64.1°S</td><td>5978</td><td>942</td><td>860</td><td>796</td><td>745</td><td>667</td><td>636</td><td>619</td><td>609</td></tr></tbody></table>

These results show that for an identical given aimed maximum interpolation error for both $A_T$ and $C_T$ properties, the number of sample collected should be slightly different. For example, for an aimed maximum error of $3\mu\text{mol.kg}^{-1}$, 871 and 860 samples should be collected for $A_T$ and $C_T$, respectively. Yet, such numbers of samples are still very high.

## Determination of the Sample Positions

Since often a single sample (or duplicate samples at the same location) will be collected for $A_T$ and $C_T$ measurements, the computation of the sample position should be performed for the property which requires the higher number of
samples. Thus, this later property will be correctly sampled to reach its aimed interpolation error, while the other property will be over sampled and will have an interpolation error even smaller than its aimed interpolation error.

Here, in this example, the higher number of samples to reach the aimed accuracy of A<sub>T</sub> and C<sub>T</sub>, is that of A<sub>T</sub>. Hence, we

will use the bound BndA<sub>T</sub><sup>mean</sup>(L) to perform the computation of the samples positions.

Thus, using equation 8 with A(x) = ∫<sub>a</sub><sup>x</sup>√BndAT<sub>mean</sub>(L) dL,

the sample positions for the A<sub>T</sub> and C<sub>T</sub> measurements are shown in Figure 5.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Latitudinal position of the 831 samples needed to reach the aimed maximum error of 3.3µmol.kg<sup>-1</sup> for A<sub>T</sub> interpolation.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Number of samples required for A<sub>T</sub> measurements within each degree of latitude.</figcaption></figure>

This sampling pattern distribution reflects the amplitudes of the variability bound. Since the largest variability bound is observed within the latitudinal interval [46.8°S; 48°S], the smallest sample spacing is within this interval.

Given the above sample distribution, the number of

samples required for A<sub>T</sub> measurements within each degree of latitude is shown in Figure 6.

Now, if samples for A<sub>T</sub> and C<sub>T</sub> can be collected independently, the sample position can be also calculated using equation 8 with A(x) = ∫<sub>a</sub><sup>x</sup>√BndCT<sub>mean</sub>(L) dL. The result is shown in Figure 7.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: Latitudinal position of the 619 samples needed to reach the aimed maximum error of 5.8µmol.kg⁻¹ for Cₜ interpolation.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Number of samples required for Cₜ measurements within each degree of latitude.</figcaption></figure>

Given the above sample distribution, the number of samples required for Cₜ measurements within each degree of latitude is shown in Figure 8.

Note here the significant difference with the Aₜ sampling pattern especially in the [46.8°S - 48°S] interval in which Cₜ variability is very low compared with that of Aₜ.

This above example assumes there is no constraint on the number of samples to be collected and measured. However, in practice, the number of samples/measurements is often a real constraint. For instance, the number of sample within this latitudinal interval ([46.2°S - 64.1°S]) during the 2010 cruise was limited to 185.

Thus, let's assume that only 185 samples for Aₜ and Cₜ measurements could be collected over this latitude range [46.2°S; 64.1°S]. Where should they be collected?

In this case, at best, if the samples were appropriately distributed as shown below, the maximum interpolated error for Aₜ will be (from eq. 5) 67µmol.kg⁻¹.

Then, using equation 8 also with the same A(x) = ∫_a^x √BndATmean(L) dL, but with M = 185 instead of 831, the sample positions would be as represented in Figure 9.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Latitudinal position for the 185 samples for A<sub>T</sub> measurements.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: Number of samples within each degree of latitude required for A<sub>T</sub> measurements for a limited total of 185 samples.</figcaption></figure>

Given the above sample distribution for the 185 samples for A<sub>T</sub> measurements, the number of samples within each degree of latitude is shown in Figure 10.

In practice, the samples are quasi-evenly spaced and in such case the maximum interpolation error (without taking into account the high variability around 47°S), which should then be calculated by equation 4, is 118µmol.kg<sup>-1</sup>.

In other words, we do know relatively accurately A<sub>T</sub> (or C<sub>T</sub>) at the measured points but between two measured points the uncertainty can be extremely large, which prevent scientists to reliably (with known uncertainty) analyze the data to improve their studies.

This may be a significant issue, in particular for all

modeling studies which are required to interpolate the measured data to their specific model grid [15-18].

For the sake of the discussion and to further show the influence of the accuracy of both the determination of A<sub>T</sub> and C<sub>T</sub> as multilinear functions of salinity and temperature, below we used the measured A<sub>T</sub> and C<sub>T</sub> data during this 2010 MINERVE cruise [19-21], to determine the constants for the A<sub>T</sub><sup>2010</sup> and C<sub>T</sub><sup>2010</sup> relationships.

Thus, if we use only the 2010 data sets, using the same type of equations (1&2) as Brandon M, et al. (2022), the results are:

$$A_{T}^{2010} = a^{2010} + b^{2010}*SSS + c^{2010}*SST \quad (9)$$
with a²²⁰¹ = 529.00; b²²⁰¹ = 52.38; c²²⁰¹ = -2.93 for both the SubAntarctic and Antarctic regions [46.2°; 64.1°S] with an A_T RMSE of 3,2µmol.kg⁻¹,

and

$$C_T^{2010} = a^{2010} + b^{2010*SSS} + c^{2010*SST} \quad (10)$$

with a²²⁰¹ = 2476.45; b²²⁰¹ = -9.23; c²²⁰¹ = -7.07 for the SubAntarctic and Antarctic regions [46.2°S; 64.1°S] with a C_T RMSE of 4,0 µmol.kg⁻¹.

Note that here, for a single year fCO₂atm is constant, and thus the term d*(fCO₂atm - 280) from eq. 2, is a constant

included in the constant a²²⁰¹. Also, note that only one (instead of two) set of constants is determined for both the SubAntarctic and Antarctic areas (thus avoiding any discontinuity between them).

These results for a single year (2010) show RMSE of both A_T²²⁰¹ and C_T²²⁰¹ quasi-identical to the accuracy of the A_T and C_T measurements on board. These excellent results, not only valid the accuracy of the measurements of the four properties A_T, C_T, SST and SSS, but also valid the form of the relationships (eq. 1&2), which indicates that A_T and C_T in surface seawater are simple multi-linear functions of SSS and SST.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: Differences C_T mean - C_T 2010 and A_T mean - A_T 2010 as function of latitudes South.</figcaption></figure>

Figure 11 shows the small difference both between A_T mean and A_T 2010 and between C_T mean and C_T 2010.

Thus, for A_T the differences indicate that compared with A_T mean, A_T 2010 is shifted by + 2µmol.kg⁻¹ and vary by +/- 2µmol. kg⁻¹ decreasing with Southward latitudes. While for C_T the differences (C_T mean - C_T 2010), remain within +/- 4µmol.kg⁻¹ in the Antarctic region. In the SubAntarctic area C_T 2010 is shifted by - 5µmol.kg⁻¹ with larger differences (+/- 7µmol.kg⁻¹) compared with C_T mean.

Thus, in order to take full advantage of the good accuracy of both, the measurements and the interpolations, it is essential to judiciously choose the locations of the samples and to accurately define the dependence of A_T and C_T with SSS and SST. The fulfillment of these conditions will open the route to significant progresses in data analyses.

## Conclusions

The first thing about sampling the ocean is to sample it anyway you can to get an idea of the behavior of its variability, and to see if the shape of the variability over the

region sampled is consistent. If it is not consistent, then all you can continue to do, is to sample it as much as you can wherever you can.

Once a consistent variability is known, then it is possible to sample more efficiently and more scientifically using semi-balanced error sampling. Semi-balanced error sampling provides samples of the data field that can be used to interpolate the value of the data field at points not sampled with a more uniform accuracy, which has greater scientific value and usefulness than a sample where the interpolation error is unknown or is highly variable.

The chief property of the data variability, or a bound of its absolute value over the region to be sampled, is that its shape determines the shape of a balanced sample pattern. This follows from the Sample Error Theorem. The sample spacing for a balanced error sample is low where the variability is high. Or more simply, the sampling rate is high where the variability is high. That is what balances the error and makes it uniform. This relationship is scale invariant. Multiply the bound by a constant and the shape of the balanced error pattern stays the same.
However, there is also a relationship between the maximum error of a balanced sample pattern and its size (number of samples) that is determined by the *magnitude* of the variability and its bound, not just its shape. This is one of the precise results of the mathematical analysis. This has great scientific usefulness, since knowing a bound on the magnitude of data variability, a scientist can determine *beforehand* how many samples have to be taken to achieve a given maximum interpolation error. This assumes of course that the sample pattern is a semi-balanced error pattern.

It should be emphasized that if two properties have the same *shape of variability* (such as temperature and salinity in our examples), they are good candidates to be measured together even if their *magnitudes* of variability are very different. But of course, they cannot be efficiently measured together unless their sample sizes are the same or almost the same. But their sample sizes are determined by the requirement for interpolation accuracy (or a maximum bound on sample error), which is *determined* by the *magnitude of* their variability. Their requirements for accuracy may be on very different scales, so unless their magnitudes differ in the same way as their required accuracy scales, it will not be possible to efficiently measure them together.

A final principle is the fact that the more you sample a data field accurately using semi-balanced error samples, the more you know about the variability and thus the more you can *improve* the accuracy of your sampling. Basically, this methodology *improves on itself* every time it is used, because its improved accuracy enables further improvement. And all of these principles are backed by specific tools of analysis.

One of the most common error in ocean data sampling is that all the different measurements are often taken at the same even rate, but the requirement that their variability shapes and magnitudes be compatible is not even known, and therefore ignored. As a result, the use of such data for interpolation may lead to unknown results.

These simple principles form the basis of a practical scientific approach to sampling all backed by a rigorous mathematical foundation and results.

## Acknowledgments

We genuinely thank Alain Poisson for the initiation of the MINERVE program, as well as Elodie Kestenare and Rosemary Morrow for the SURVOSTRAL data and helpful comments. We are grateful to Daniel Davis for helpful discussions, thoughtful suggestions, and providing language help. We thank the Terres Austral et Antactique Françaises (TAAF) and the Institut Paul Emile Victor (IPEV) for logistic support during the 2010 cruise.

## Funding

This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

## References

1. Morrow R, Kestenare E (2014) Nineteen-year changes in surface salinity in the Southern Ocean south of Australia. Journal of Marine Systems 129: 472-483.

2. Morrow R, Donguy JR, Chaigneau A, Rintoul S (2004) Cold core anomalies at the SubAntarctic Front, south of Tasmania. Deep-Sea Research part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 51(11): 1417-1440.

3. Guglielmi V, Touratier F, Goyet C (2022) Mathematical determination of discrete sampling locations minimizing both the number of samples and the maximum interpolation error: application to measurements of surface ocean properties. EarthArxiv, pp: 1-26.

4. LEGOS, Laboratory of Geophysics and Spatial Oceanography Studies.

5. Sea Surface Salinity Data Base Web Access.

6. Alory G, Delcroix T, Techine P, Diverres D, Varillon D, et al. (2015) The French contribution to the voluntary observing ships network of sea surface salinity. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 105: 1-18.

7. Brandon M, Goyet C, Touratier F, Lefèvre N, Kestenare E, et al. (2022) Spatio-temporal variability of the CO₂ properties and anthropogenic carbon penetration, in the Southern Ocean surface waters. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 187: 103836.

8. Davis D, Goyet C (2021) Balanced Error Sampling: With application to ocean biogeochemical sampling. Presses Universitaires de Perpignan, pp: 214.

9. Orsi AH, Whitworth T, Nowlin WD (1995) On the meridional extent and fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 42(5): 641-673.

10. Chaigneau A, Morrow R (2002) Surface temperature and salinity variations between Tasmania and Antarctica, 1993-1999. J Geophys Res 107(c12): SRF 22-1-SRF 22-8.

11. Krasakopoulou E, Souvermezoglou E, Giannoudi L, Goyet C (2017) Carbonate system parameters and anthropogenic CO₂ in the North Aegean Sea during October 2013. Continental Shelf Research 149: 69-81.
12. Cai WJ, Feely RA, Testa JM, Li M, Evans W, et al. (2021) Natural and Anthropogenic Drivers of Acidification in Larges Estuaries, Annual Review of Marine Science 13: 23-55.

13. Hurst TP, Copeman LA, Andrade JF, Stowell MA., Al-Samarrie CE, et al. (2021) Expanding evaluation of ocean acidification responses in a marine gadid: elevated CO₂ impacts development, but not size of larval walleye pollock. Marine Biology 168(8).

14. Dickinson G H, Bejerano S, Salvador T, Makdisi C, Patel S, et al. (2021) Ocean acidification alters properties of the exoskeleton in adult Tanner crabs, Chionoecetes bairdi. The Journal of experimental biology 224(3): jeb2328.

15. Pousse E, Daphne M, Hart D, Hennen D, Cameron PL, et al. (2022) Dynamic Energy Budget modeling of Atlantic surfclam, *Spisula solidissima*, under future ocean acidification and warming. Marine environmental research 177: 105602.

16. Khatiwala S, Primeau F, Hall T (2009) Reconstruction of

the history of anthropogenic CO₂ concentrations in the ocean. Nature 462(7271): 346-349.

17. Sallee JB, Shuckburgh E, Bruneau N, Meijers AJS, Bracegirdle TJ, et al. (2013) Assessment of Southern Ocean water mass circulation and characteristics in CMIP5 models: Historical bias and forcing response. J Geophys Res Ocean118(4): 1830-1844.

18. Schlund M, Lauer A, Gentin, P, Sherwood SC, Eyring V (2020) Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity in CMIP5: do they hold for CMIP6? Earth Sys Dyn 11: 1233-1258.

19. French Oceanographic Campaigns, MiNERVE, Series of oceanographic cruises.

20. Marine Data Portal, Sismer, French research institute for the exploitation of the sea.

21. Seanoe Sea scientific open data publication.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>