OCS Study

BOEM 2014-669

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

Measurements in the Yucatan-Campeche 

Area in Support of the Loop Current

Dynamics Study
OCS Study

BOEM 2014-669

Published by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

New Orleans, LA

November 2014

Measurements in the Yucatan-Campeche 

Area in Support of the Loop Current

Dynamics Study

Authors

Gabriela Athie

Julio Sheinbaum

Angelica Romero

Jose Ochoa

Julio Candela

Prepared under BOEM Contract

M09PC00017

by

Centro de Investigaciὁn Cientἱfica

y Educaciόn Superior de Ensenada

Ensenada, Baja California, México
iii

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under contract between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) and the Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada 

(CICESE). This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for 

publication. Approval does not necessarily signify that the contents reflect the views and policies 

of BOEM, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

To download a PDF file of this Gulf of Mexico OCS Region report, go to the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program Information 

System website and search on OCS Study BOEM 2014-669.

This report can be viewed at select Federal Depository Libraries. It can also be obtained from the 

National Technical Information Service; the contact information is below.

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Rd.

Springfield, Virginia 22312

Phone: (703) 605-6000, 1(800)553-6847

Fax: (703) 605-6900

Website: http://www.ntis.gov/

CITATION

Athie, G., J. Sheinbaum, A. Romero, J. Candela, and J. Ochoa. 2014. Measurements in the 

Yucatan-Campeche area in support of the Loop Current dynamics study. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2014-669. 159 pp.

ABOUT THE COVER

Mooring on the deck of UNAM’s R/V Justo Sierra. Watercolor by A. Badan. Used by 

permission. All rights reserved.
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are due to Dr. Alexis Lugo-Fernandez from BOEM and Dr. Peter Hamilton and all 

the people at LEIDOS, for their generous support throughout the development of the study. We 

would also like to thank Captain Leobardo Ríos and the crew of R/V Justo Sierra for their 

enthusiastic support at sea. This work would not have been possible without the ample 

participation of CICESE’s technical staff and students, in particular J.I. González, A. Ledo, R. 

Marquez, D. Piñero, S. Paishao, C. M. Ojeda, B. Pérez, J. García, C. Flores, and administrative 

support by L. Zuñiga, M.F. Sánchez-Elguera, and M.T. Agüero.
vii

CONTENTS 

CONTENTS____________________________________________________________________________________ vii

LIST OF FIGURES _____________________________________________________________________________ix

LIST OF TABLES _____________________________________________________________________________ xv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS______________________________________________________ xvii

ABSTRACT_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1

1. Introduction________________________________________________________________________________ 2

1.1 Background _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3

2. Deployment setting and data characteristics_________________________________________ 6

3. Data Analysis______________________________________________________________________________19

3.1 Mean Current Profiles and Basic Statistics________________________________________________19

3.2 Empirical Orthogonal Function Analysis__________________________________________________52

4. Seasonality of the Yucatan Current____________________________________________________78

4.1 Transport Variability at the Yucatan Channel____________________________________________78

4.2 Seasonal Variations of the Yucatan Current and Loop Current________________________85

5. On the Loop Current Eddy Releases _________________________________________________ 103

6. Summary and Conclusions____________________________________________________________ 111

7. References_______________________________________________________________________________ 117

APPENDIX A. TABLES OF BASIC STATISTICS __________________________________________ 122
ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. (a) Location and labels of the Canek moorings along the Yucatan Peninsula. The 

rectangle in (a) marks the area shown in (b) for moorings over YC. Depth 

contours are in meters................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2. Vertical distribution of instruments on the moorings deployed at YC between 

March 2008 and May 2011......................................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Vertical distribution of instruments over the PE and PN sections. ............................... 10

Figure 4. Data record history for the instruments in each mooring. ............................................. 11

Figure 5. Time-depth diagrams from ADCP instruments located on YUC3. The plots 

compare the zonal (top two panels) and meridional (two lower panels) 

components of the velocity (in m/s) using Leidos-processed data (first and third 

panels) and CICESE-processed data (second and fourth panels). Leidos 

processing fills the data gaps using an in-house method and CICESE leaves gaps 

intact. Filters are slightly different in their frequency transfer function................... 13

Figure 6. As in Figure 5, for ADCP instrument at 500 m depth on mooring PE3........................ 14

Figure 7. As in Figure 5, for ADCP instrument at 100 m depth on mooring PN1. ...................... 15

Figure 8. Zonal (top panel) and meridional (middle panel) components of velocity (in m/s) of 

the deepest current meter of Yucatan section. Comparison between Leidosprocessed data (red line) and Canek-processed data (black line). The difference 

between both versions is shown in the lower panel for each velocity component. .. 16

Figure 9. As in Figure 8, for PE section. ...................................................................................... 17

Figure 10. As in Figure 8 for PN section...................................................................................... 18

Figure 11. Speed of mean current profile, standard deviation (STD) profile, and ratio of 

subinertial to total current variance measured by the instruments on YUC5 at the 

YC. Red dots indicate the specific depth of measurements with the ADCPs and 

current meters. .......................................................................................................... 20

Figure 12. As in Figure 11 for mooring YUC6 at the YC. ........................................................... 21

Figure 13. As in Figure 11 for mooring YUC7 at the YC. ........................................................... 22

Figure 14. As in Figure 11, for mooring PE1. .............................................................................. 24

Figure 15. As in Figure 11, for mooring PE4. .............................................................................. 25

Figure 16. As in Figure 11, for mooring PE5. .............................................................................. 26

Figure 17. As in Figure 11, for moorings PN3. ............................................................................ 28

Figure 18. As in Figure 11, for moorings PN4. ............................................................................ 29

Figure 19. Mean horizontal current profile (vectors in 3-D space) observed at each of the six 

moorings at the YC. The left panels show the profile averaged between July 

2009 and March 2010, and the right panels averaged between May 2010 and 
x

May 2011. The east-west/north-south components are in the abscissa/ordinate

directions with each vector starting at its corresponding depth................................ 30

Figure 20. As in Figure 19, for moorings on section PE. For the exception of the upper left 

panel the average is for only the month of July 2009............................................... 32

Figure 21. As in Figures 19 and 20, for moorings on section PN................................................. 34

Figure 22. Mean and variability ellipses of the measured currents at 50m depth. ...................... 36

Figure 23. Mean and variability ellipses of the measured currents at 450 m depth. ................... 37

Figure 24. Mean and variability ellipses of the measured currents at the indicated depths 

(numbers are indicated with colors). ........................................................................ 38

Figure 25. Vector time series from mooring YUC2 at the YC; different depths are indicated. ... 40

Figure 26. As in Figure 25 from mooring YUC3 at the YC......................................................... 41

Figure 27. As in Figure 25 from mooring YUC5 at the YC......................................................... 42

Figure 28. As in Figure 25 from mooring YUC7 at the YC......................................................... 43

Figure 29. Vector time series from mooring PE1; different depths are indicated. ....................... 44

Figure 30. As in Figure 29 from mooring PE2. Note the change in the velocity scale. ............... 45

Figure 31. As in Figure 29 from mooring PE3. Note the change in the velocity scale. ............... 46

Figure 32. As in Figure 29 from mooring PE4. Note the change in the velocity scale. ............... 47

Figure 33. As in Figure 29 from mooring PE5. Note the change in the velocity scale. ............... 48

Figure 34. Vector time series from moorings PN1 and PN2, different depths are indicated. ...... 49

Figure 35. As in Figure 34, from mooring PN3. Note the change in the velocity scale............... 50

Figure 36. As in Figure 34, from mooring PN4. Note the change in the velocity scale............... 51

Figure 37. Map of the spatial structure averaged over the 500m depth of the first (black 

arrows) and second (blue arrows) EOF modes, calculated for each mooring 

individually. .............................................................................................................. 54

Figure 38. Time series (also called principal components) of the first EOF modes at the YC; 

time series are lagged by 4 for clarity....................................................................... 55

Figure 39. As Figure 38, of the second EOF modes at the YC..................................................... 56

Figure 40. Time series (also called principal components) of the first and EOF mode for 

section PE. Vertical axis is shifted 4 units for each time-series for clarity. ............. 57

Figure 41. As Figure 40, of the second EOF mode for section PE............................................... 58

Figure 42. Time series (also called principal components) of the first EOF mode for section 

PN. Vertical axis is shifted 4 units for each time-series for clarity. ......................... 59

Figure 43. As Figure 42, of the second EOF mode for section PN. ............................................. 59

Figure 44. First two EOF modes for the observed subinertial current calculated for mooring 

YUC3 at the YC. Spatial structure and its principal component are indicated for 

the first (black) and second (blue) modes................................................................. 60
xi

Figure 45. As in Figure 44, for mooring YUC5 at the YC. .......................................................... 61

Figure 46. As in Figure 44, for mooring YUC6 at the YC. .......................................................... 62

Figure 47. As in Figure 44, for mooring YUC7 at the YC. .......................................................... 63

Figure 48. Principal components of the first mode EOF performed to currents time series 

below 800m depth for mooring YUC6, individually. Time series are offset by 5 

units for clarity. Correlations values between contiguous series are indicated 

between them. ........................................................................................................... 65

Figure 49. Principal components of the first mode EOF performed to currents time series 

below 800m depth for mooring YUC7, individually. Vertical axis is shifted 5 

units for each time-series for clarity. Correlations values between contiguous 

series are indicated between them. ........................................................................... 66

Figure 50. First two EOF modes for the observed subinertial current calculated for mooring 

PE1. Spatial structure and its principal component are indicated for the first 

(black) and second (blue) modes. ............................................................................. 67

Figure 51. As in Figure 50, for mooring PE3. .............................................................................. 68

Figure 52. As in Figure 50, for ADCP installed at 1000 m depth at mooring PE4. ..................... 69

Figure 53. As in Figure 50, for mooring PE5. .............................................................................. 70

Figure 54. As in Figure 50, for mooring PEN. ............................................................................. 72

Figure 55. First two EOF modes for the observed subinertial current calculated for mooring 

PN1. Spatial structure and its principal component are indicated for the first 

(black) and second (blue) modes. ............................................................................. 73

Figure 56. As in Figure 55, for mooring PN2............................................................................... 74

Figure 57. As in Figure 55, for mooring PN3............................................................................... 75

Figure 58. As in Figure 55, for mooring PN4............................................................................... 76

Figure 59. Mean along-channel velocity from objective mapped current observations at the 

WYC (top panels, black line indicates the cero velocity contour). Standard 

deviation of velocity fields (bottom panels). Calculations were performed 

separately for each period of Canek measurements. ................................................ 80

Figure 60. Time evolution of transport through the WYC (west of 85.6°W). Left panel: 

Canek measurements between September 1999 and May 2001, showed for 

reference. Right panel: Canek measurements between March 2008 and May 

2011. ......................................................................................................................... 80

Figure 61. Spatial structure of the first EOF mode (top panel, black line indicates the zero 

contour) at the YC. Time evolution (principal component) of the first EOF 

mode. ........................................................................................................................ 82

Figure 62. As in Figure 61, for the second EOF mode at YC....................................................... 83

Figure 63. Standardized anomalies of the low-pass transport series from the WYC (black 

line), compared with the principal components of the first (blue line, top panel) 

and second (red line, bottom panel) EOF modes at the YC. .................................... 84
xii

Figure 64. Seasonal cycle of transport through the YC (total transport anomalies indicated 

with black line), calculated between September 1999–May 2001 and May 2010–

May 2011. The YC seasonal cycle from Rosset and Beal (2011) is indicated (red 

line). .......................................................................................................................... 86

Figure 65. Seasonal cycle of transport anomalies through the YC calculated between 

September 1999–May 2001 and May 2010–May 2011. Seasonal cycles were 

calculated separately for total YC transport (black line) and through the east 

(green line) and west (blue line) of 85.6oW.............................................................. 87

Figure 66. Seasonal cycle of transport through the WYC (west of 85.6oW); calculated 

between September 1999–May 2001 and May 2010–May 2011 (blue line) and 

between April 2008–May 2011 (magenta line). ....................................................... 88

Figure 67. Time-evolution of the YC transport calculated for the western (black line) and 

eastern (red line) YC between May 2010 and May 2011......................................... 89

Figure 68. Map of the Caribbean Sea–Gulf the Mexico system, showing the areas where 

X

 , 

t Y

and



were estimated from the ERA-interim data. The Cayman Sea (blue 

square) is the same region chosen by Chang and Oey (2012, 2013). ....................... 91

Figure 69. Seasonal cycle of the WYC transport (black line) compared with the zonal wind

stress curl (upper panel) and the wind stress (lower panel) for the Cayman Sea 

(blue line) and the Gulf of Mexico (green line, areas are indicated in Figure 68) 

between September 1999–May 2001 and April 2008–December 2010. All the 

series are 40-days low-pass filtered and showed in standarized anomalies. ............ 92

Figure 70. Seasonal cycle of the WYC transport (black line) compared with the zonal winds 

tress curl for the Cayman Sea (blue line) and the Gulf of Mexico (green line, 

areas are indicated in Figure 68) separated by periods: September 1999–May 

2001 (upper panel) and April 2008–December 2010 (lower panel). All the series 

are 40-days low-pass filtered and showed in standarized anomalies. ...................... 93

Figure 71. Monthly averaged time series of the WYC transport (black line) compared with 

the winds stress curl for the Cayman Sea (upper panels) and the Gulf of Mexico 

(bottom panels), areas are indicated in Figure 68 for the two periods of Canek 

measurements. All the series are 40-days low-pass filtered and showed in 

standarized anomalies............................................................................................... 94

Figure 72. Monthly averaged time series of the WYC transport (black line) compared with 

the zonal winds stress for the Cayman Sea (upper panels) and the Gulf of 

Mexico (bottom panels, areas are indicated in Figure 68) for the two periods of 

Canek measurements. All the series are 40-days low-pass filtered and showed in 

standarized anomalies............................................................................................... 95

Figure 73. Cross-correlation between wind stress curl and WYC transport (rcy upper panel) 

and between zonal wind stress and WYC transport (rxy, bottom panel) calculated 

separately for each Canek campaign. The maxima correlation time-lag (negative) 

is indicated by the red dot......................................................................................... 96

Figure 74. Longitude-time diagram of the along-channel velocity through YC (left panel); the 

maximum value of the YCu is indicated by the black line and the yellow line 
xiii

indicates the 86.4W fixed longitude. Time series of the maximum value of 

velocity from YCu anomalies (black line) and of the position in longitude 

anomalies of this maximum value (red line). ........................................................... 97

Figure 75. Seasonal cycle of the WYC (black line), vorticity of the YCu (green line), and the 

LC northern extension in latitude (blue line); values are indicated in standardized 

anomalies calculated between March 2008 and May 2011. ..................................... 99

Figure 76. Vorticity of the YCu (green line) compared with the WYC transport (black line, 

upper panel) and with the LC northern extension (blue line, middle panel); WYC 

transport and the LC extension are also compared (bottom panel). ....................... 100

Figure 77. Detrended time integral of vorticity of the YCu (green line) and the LC northern 

extension (blue line). .............................................................................................. 101

Figure 78. Regression performed year by year using available Canek data between the LC 

northern extension and WYC transport anomalies (upper panel) and between the 

LC northern boundary and vorticity anomalies (bottom panel; note that vorticity 

is divided by Coriolis parameter f). ........................................................................ 101

Figure 79. Regression of the seasonal cycle calculated from March 2008 to April 2011 

between the LC northern extension and WYC transport anomalies (left panel) 

and between the LC northern extension and vorticity of the YCu anomalies 

(right panel, vorticity divided by f)......................................................................... 102

Figure 80. Averaged sea surface height (contours) and horizontal distribution of the 

detachments (crosses) occurred between July 2008 and August 2010. The 45 cm 

mean contour of sea surface height (black line) and the mooring positions (white 

dots) are indicated................................................................................................... 104

Figure 81. Snapshots of absolute sea surface height from AVISO showing the evolution of 

the four detachments documented: July 2, 2008 (top panels); February 18, 2009 

(middle top panels); August 5, 2009 (middle bottom panels); August 11, 2010 

(bottom panels). Detachment dates are determinate by the date that the 45 cm 

contour separated from the LC. .............................................................................. 105

Figure 82. Longitude-time plot of the along-channel velocity for the WYC for Canek data 

(left panel) and geostrophic velocities from AVISO (middle panel). Alongchannel velocity was averaged in longitude (right panel) for Canek data (black 

line) and AVISO data (blue line). Black lines indicate the dates of the LCE 

detachments. ........................................................................................................... 106

Figure 83. Longitude-time plot of the Canek data velocity components: parallel to section PE 

(left panel) and perpendicular to section PE (middle panel). Eddy kinetic energy 

is shown in the right panel. Black lines indicate the dates of the LCE3 and LCE4 

detachments occurred between July 2009 and April 2011. .................................... 107

Figure 84. Longitude-time plot of the geostrophic velocity components deduced from AVISO 

sea surface height: parallel to section PE (left panel) perpendicular to section PE 

(middle panel). Eddy kinetic energy is shown in the right panel. Black lines 

indicate the dates of the LCE2, LCE3, and LCE4 detachments occurred between 

April 2009 and December 2010.............................................................................. 108
xiv

Figure 85. Horizontal shear at the WYC from mooring data (top panel) and AVISO 

geostrophic velocities (middle panel). Horizontal shear was calculated from the 

anomalies of the difference between the highest velocity of the YCu and the 

velocity at 86.4°W. Detrended time integrals of horizontal shear velocities were 

estimated (bottom panel). ....................................................................................... 109

Figure 86. Time-latitude diagram of the sea surface height anomalies interpolated along the 

black trace of the map at the top. Anomalies of the horizontal shear velocity 

along the PE section calculated between moorings PE5 and PE2 (middle panel). 

Detrended time integral of the horizontal shear velocity at PE station (bottom 

panel). Time span only covers LCE2, LCE3, and LCE4........................................ 110

Figure 87. Fist EOF mode of variability for the section PE, which represents the western side 

of the LC. Temporal evolution or principal component of the mode (lower panel, 

black line) with anomalies of the horizontal shear velocity along PE section 

indicated (vertical black lines)................................................................................ 113

Figure 88. Time-evolution of YC transport anomalies considering the whole YC (black line) 

andcalculated between moorings PE5 and PE2 (cyan line). LCE releases dates 

are the WYC (blue line), for the first period (1999–2001, left panels) and the 

second period (2010–2011, right panels) of Canek measurements. ....................... 114

Figure 89. Monthly averaged time series of the total (black line) and western (blue line) YC 

transport between May 2010 and April 2011. ........................................................ 115
xv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Location and deployment depth of the 16 moorings between July 2009 and March 

2010 (Canek 20). ........................................................................................................ 7

Table 2. Location and deployment depth of the 16 moorings between May 2010 and May 

2011 (Canek 23). ........................................................................................................ 8

Table 3. Correlation values between principal components of moorings at the Yucatan 

Channel (upper half of the table), considering only the first EOF mode over the 

500 m depth; 95% significant (not significant) values are indicate in black 

(gray). Blue values represent the effective degrees of freedom, calculated from 

the expression given by Chelton (1983), which considers the cross-covariance 

between the series. .................................................................................................... 53

Table 4. Mean transport and its standard deviation (in Sverdrups: 1Sv= 106 m

3

/s), estimated 

for the whole Yucatan Channel (Total), and divided in two parts: west of 85.6°W 

(Western) and east of this longitude (Eastern). Standard error with a 95% 

confidence level, are also indicated for the total transports. The calculation was 

made for each period of continuous measurements of the Canek Project. ............... 79

Table A- 1. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC2 during Canek 20.............................................. 123

Table A- 2. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC2 during Canek 23.............................................. 123

Table A- 3. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC3 during Canek 20.............................................. 124

Table A- 4. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC3 during Canek 23.............................................. 124

Table A- 5. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC4 Canek 20 ......................................................... 125

Table A- 6. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC5 Canek 20 ......................................................... 126

Table A- 7. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC5 during Canek 23.............................................. 127

Table A- 8. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC6 during Canek 20.............................................. 128

Table A- 9. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC6 during Canek 23.............................................. 130

Table A- 10. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC7 during Canek 20............................................ 132

Table A- 11. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC7 during Canek 23............................................ 134

Table A- 12. Basic statistics for Mooring PE1 during Canek 20 ............................................... 136

Table A- 13. Basic statistics for Mooring PE1 during Canek 23 ............................................... 136

Table A- 14. Basic statistics for Mooring PE2 during Canek 20 ............................................... 137

Table A- 15. Basic statistics for Mooring PE2 during Canek 23 ............................................... 138

Table A- 16. Basic statistics for Mooring PE3 during Canek 20 ............................................... 139

Table A- 17. Basic statistics for Mooring PE3 during Canek 23 ............................................... 140

Table A- 18. Basic statistics for Mooring PE4 during Canek 20 ............................................... 141
xvi

Table A- 19. Basic statistics for Mooring PE4 during Canek 23 ............................................... 143

Table A- 20. Basic statistics for Mooring PE5 during Canek 20 ............................................... 145

Table A- 21. Basic statistics for Mooring PE5 during Canek 23 ............................................... 147

Table A- 22. Basic statistics for Mooring PEN during Canek 20............................................... 149

Table A- 23. Basic statistics for Mooring PEN during Canek 23............................................... 150

Table A- 24. Basic statistics for Mooring PN1 during Canek 20 ............................................... 151

Table A- 25. Basic statistics for Mooring PN1 during Canek 23 ............................................... 151

Table A- 26. Basic statistics for Mooring PN2 during Canek 20 ............................................... 152

Table A- 27. Basic statistics for Mooring PN2 during Canek 23 ............................................... 153

Table A- 28. Basic statistics for Mooring PN3 during Canek 20 ............................................... 154

Table A- 29. Basic statistics for Mooring PN3 during Canek 23 ............................................... 155

Table A- 30. Basic statistics for Mooring PN4 during Canek 20 ............................................... 156

Table A- 31. Basic statistics for Mooring PN4 during Canek 23 ............................................... 158
xvii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

AVISO Archiving, Validation and Interpretation of Satellite Oceanographic data 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

CERSAT Centre ERS d’Archivage et de Traitement 

CICESE Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada 

CNES Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, France 

CRRS Current meter (Aanderaa or Nortek Aquadopp) 

CTD (or C/T/D) Conductivity/Temperature/Depth 

Duacs Developing Use of Altimetry for Climate Studies

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EKE Eddy Kinetic Energy 

EOF Empirical Orthogonal Function 

ERS-2 Earth Resources Satellite–2 

GDR Geophysical Data Record 

GEOSAT Geodetic Satellite 

GFO Geosat Follow-On 

GMT Greenwich Mean Time or UTC 

GoM Gulf of Mexico 

LC Loop Current 

LCE Loop Current Eddy

LCFE Loop Current Frontal Eddies 

MADT Maps of Absolute Dynamic Topography

MMS Minerals Management Service 

NDBC National Data Buoy Center 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

PC Principal Component

PE Plataforma Este

PN Plataforma Norte

PI Principal Investigator 

PIES Inverted Echo Sounder with Pressure 

STD Standard Deviation

Ssalto Multi-mission ground segment for altimetry, orbitography and precise 

localization

SSH Sea Surface Height 

SST Sea Surface Temperature 

Sv Sverdrups (1Sv equals

6 3 1

10  m s

)

T Temperature

WYC Western Yucatan Channel

YC Yucatan Channel

YCu Yucatan Current
1

ABSTRACT

Three years of direct near-surface to bottom current measurements at the western Yucatan 

Channel (defined west of 85.6oW) between 2008 and 2011 capture the main characteristics of the 

Yucatan Current. Average current structure shows a high degree of consistency over time, with 

mean near-surface velocities of about 1 m/s, decreasing significantly with depth. The current 

core position varies between 86.4oW and 86oW and the mean current is stronger than the 

variability. Below 1000m depth, current velocities are below 0.1 m/s and variations and mean 

flow have similar magnitude. Current velocity near the bottom increases slightly in the center of 

the channel, which has been shown to be related to the Loop Current dynamics. Further north, 

the western edge of the Loop Current was monitored with four moorings during 22 months (PE

section, June 2009–April 2011); the average current there was lower than that obtained through 

the Yucatan Channel (0.75 m/s in its core) with variability as strong as the mean current. Five 

more moorings were deployed over the shelf break and slope north of the Campeche bank (PN 

section) between March 2008 and May 2011. Current orientation along the Yucatan slope 

follows the topography with an increased flow near the bottom relative to the flow aloft. This 

feature observed in the deepest moorings, suggests the presence of Topographic Rossby Waves.

The core of the Yucatan Current and Loop Current was observed to have a more offshore 

position in summer, moving back westward, toward the shore in winter-spring, suggesting a

possible seasonality of the current meanders. Measurements at western Yucatan Channel and PE 

sections, as well as satellite data, indicate that these current meanders are associated with periods 

of positive horizontal shear (cyclonic vorticity anomalies) propagating northward from the 

Caribbean coast of Mexico into the Gulf. An important result of this work is that current 

meanders are related to Loop Current Eddy detachments, because four of the five Loop Current 

eddies released between 2008 and 2011 were found to be related to the propagation of negative 

anomalies of SSH along the Yucatan coast crossing the Yucatan Channel producing intense 

pulses of eddy kinetic energy in the Loop Current as observed at PE section.

Between May 2010 and May 2011, nine moorings were deployed to measure the whole 

Yucatan Channel (Yucatan to Cuba), providing relevant information about the total Yucatan 

transport. Total mean transport during this year was 27.1 ± 0.3 Sv, with a standard deviation of 

3.6 Sv, which is 5–6 Sv higher than transport estimated by Canek Project measurements during 

1999–2001. An important finding of the present work is that separating the Yucatan Channel into 

western and eastern sides indicates that transport anomalies at both sides of the channel are of the 

same order of magnitude (4–5 Sv), and show a remarkable compensation between them over

time (observed also for the 1999–2001 period), despite the fact that the western side contributes

90% of the total transport (mean transport of 24.4 Sv at the western side and 2.8 Sv at the eastern 

side). Moreover, the seasonal cycle shows an asymmetric behavior with maxima in winter-spring 

and to a lesser extent in summer when only the western Yucatan Channel transport is considered. 

This semi-annual behavior is absent in the total Yucatan Channel transport series, which depicts 

a clear maximum only in summer. The wind stress curl over the Cayman Sea has higher 

correlation with the western Yucatan Channel transport than the total transport. However, even 

with the western Yucatan Channel transport there are periods when such connection is lost,

suggesting that inter-annual variability and forcing at other locations can change conditions 

enough to break the correlation.
2

1. INTRODUCTION

The Loop Current (LC) is a western boundary current, which is responsible for the transport 

of warm waters from the Caribbean Sea into the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), and then to higher 

latitudes once it crosses the Straits of Florida. The Yucatan Channel (YC) is a key point in this 

trajectory, since it is the only passage between the Caribbean and the GoM basins. The transport 

through the YC is considered the principal forcing agent of the circulation in the GoM and its 

variability has significant implications for the dynamics within the gulf, but also for the 

circulation in the western Subtropical Atlantic.

The flow through the YC can be thought of as having two layers: an upper and a lower layer. 

The upper one is characterized by a strong jet on the western side of the channel, known as the 

Yucatan Current (YCu) that flows into the GoM becoming the LC and exits the GoM through the 

Straits of Florida over its 700m sill (Maul et al., 1985). This upper layer also includes return

flows into the Caribbean: an intermittent near-surface flow close to Cuba known as the Cuban 

Countercurrent, and a highly variable sub-surface flow over the shallower slope on the Yucatan

side. The lower layer lies below the level of the Florida sill, and net exchanges through it are 

found to be null (Sheinbaum et al., 2002). Lower layer flows at different levels may be related to

regional processes that involve water mass transformations and the ventilation of the deep GoM 

(Maul et al., 1985; Bunge et al., 2002; Rivas et al., 2005; Sturges et al., 2005). These include 

southward counter-flows near both slopes of the channel, and a deep flow into the GoM over the 

Yucatan sill. The transport through the YC was measured for nearly two years with a mooring 

array deployed from August 1999 to June 2001 by the Canek Project. The mean transport 

observed during that period was 23 Sv, which is about 20% lower than the transport of 28 Sv that 

had been commonly accepted for this channel and by continuity as that between Cuba and 

Florida. Besides many other aspects, those two-year Canek measurements revealed the high 

variability of the currents at the YC and the necessity of continuous and long-term observations 

to clearly understand its behavior. 

Transport and current variability through the YC has important implications downstream, 

affecting, in particular, the LC dynamics. A characteristic feature of the LC is the detachment of 

large anti-cyclonic eddies (LCEs) at irregular intervals. The separation process of these warm 

core eddies is very complicated and usually involves several detachments-reattachments; the 

reasons why the ultimate eddy release occurs remain unclear and cannot be ascribed to a unique 

cause. The detachment of LCEs is further described in the following subsection.

Recent studies suggest there are wind-forced seasonal fluctuations in transport at the YC and 

the Florida Straits (Rousset and Beal, 2011) characterized by a semiannual cycle with maximum 

transports in summer and winter. The latter appears to be smaller in the numerical experiments of 

Chang and Oey (2010). The proposed semi-annual cycle has implications for the LC eddy 

variability, because it is claimed that there is a higher number of eddy releases during summer 

and winter and less in fall and spring (Chang and Oey, 2012; 2013). These authors suggest the 

semiannual variations are linked to an out of phase combination of the seasonal intensification 
3

(weakening) of the trade winds over the Caribbean (GoM), resulting in an increase (decrease) of 

the Yucatan transport which favors an increment (decrement) in the release of LC eddies. 

To investigate the flow over the western Yucatan Channel (WYC) and Campeche Bank and 

its role in the LC dynamics and eddy detachment, an array of moorings was deployed at YC and 

two other strategic cross-sections farther north over the Campeche Bank where the Yucatan-LC

is usually located. This array provides valuable information in support of the high density array 

of observations deployed by our colleagues from the LC Dynamics Experiment, whose main 

focus is over the area where LC eddy detachments usually occur. Data recovered from our array 

document several aspects of the YCu variability and its downstream connection with the LC. In 

particular, analysis of data from section PE (across the LC, see Figure 1) clarifies some aspects 

of the anticyclonic eddy releases and their relation to vorticity fluxes from the Northwestern 

Caribbean into the GoM. Additionally, the four moorings installed north of the Yucatan 

Peninsula straddling the shelf break and slope, and placed there with the objective to determine 

the origin of the observed deep southward flow at the YC, revealed other motions of interest,

such as short-period velocity fluctuations within the core of the LC, associated with surface 

intensified Loop Current Frontal Eddies (LCFEs), a process not previously described in detail

before.

The present report is organized as follows. Before ending this introduction, a discussion of 

models and measurements sets the background information. In section 2 we present the location 

of moorings along descriptions of the recorded data and time series of various data examples. In 

section 3 Data Analysis, we present the basic statistics of the sub-inertial currents at the WYC,

and at sections PE and PN further north along the Campeche bank (see Figure 1). In section 3, 

also, an empirical orthogonal function analysis of the flow variability at each of the sections is 

described. Next, in section 4, an analysis of transport through the YC and its connection with the 

wind forcing and the LC extension is considered. Section 5 is dedicated to the connection 

between vorticity fluxes through WYC and the release of LC anti-cyclonic eddies. In section 6 

we deal with 8–10 days period fluctuations linked to LCFEs and their connection with coastally 

trapped waves over the GoM. The last section presents the conclusions. A series of appendices 

include tables and figures of mooring design and mooring statistics.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Transport through the YC, together with the flow from Old Bahama and Northwest 

Providence Channels, compose the Florida Straits transport at 27°N between Miami and Bimini. 

This flow has been monitored regularly for more than 40 years (Meinen et al, 2010). By contrast, 

the YC has been measured less frequently and many questions remain unanswered about the 

strength and low frequency variability of the flow through this channel. Florida transport 

estimates from a submarine cable, calibrated by direct current measurements, give a mean and 

standard deviation of 30.8 Sv ± 3.2 Sv (Larsen, 1992; Baringer and Larsen, 2001); this is about 

30% higher than the 23.0 ± 3.2 Sv reported from two years of moored measurements at the YC

between 1999 and 2001 by the Canek Project [Sheinbaum et al., 2002; Ochoa et al., 2003]. This 

last value is also ~20% lower than the 28 Sv estimated for this channel from: i) hydrographic 

data (Gordon, 1967; Roemmich, 1981), ii) calculations based on the basin-scale mass balance 
4

(Johns et al., 2002), and iii) from the difference between transport measured at Florida and the 

Old Bahama and Northwest Providence channels (Atkinson et al., 1995; Leaman et al., 1995).

These estimates, however, are based on other assumptions than continuous mooring data, such as 

horizontal levels of no motion or specified transports through other channels (e.g., Windward 

Passage).

Recent measurements in the YC area and the Florida Straits (between 2001 and 2006) from 

shipboard ADCP (Rousset and Beal, 2010; 2011, see also Johns et al., 2002), suggest similar 

transports of about 30 Sv in both passages and a semiannual cycle not detected in the continuous 

mooring data from Canek (Abascal et al., 2003; Ochoa et al., 2003). These recent measurements,

however, eliminate tides using a global tidal model and, although they include several samples, 

they are not continuous and depend on single ship crossings. The cross-section area of these 

channels is substantial, making it difficult to estimate transport errors induced by an improper 

filtering of the tidal signal even if it is of 2–3 cm/sec. The ship-adcp measurements suggest a 

small contribution (~3 Sv) from Old Bahama and Northwest Providence Channel, but do not 

agree with recent lower transport estimates for other Caribbean passages (Rousset and Beal, 

2011). The complex variability at the YC needs continuous long-term measurements to really 

grasp the dominant processes at work.

The variability of the flow through the YC is connected with variability downstream of the 

LC and also the Florida Current. Observations and model studies indicate that shedding events of 

LCEs are related to transport fluctuations in the YC (Hurlburt and Thompson, 1980; Oey, 1996; 

Oey et al., 2003; Ezer et al., 2003). However, mechanisms and processes have been proposed to 

influence ring separation: momentum imbalance (Pichevin and Nof 1997), barotropic and 

baroclinic instability of the LC (Hulburt 1982; Cherubin et al. 2006), pulses of increased 

transport through the Florida Straits (Sturges et al. 2010), seasonal modulation by the local wind 

stress (Chang and Oey 2012), advection of cyclonic vorticity from the Cayman Basin (Candela et 

al., 2002; Athie et al. 2012), interaction with cyclonic eddies generated locally or LCFEs 

(Fratantoni et al. 1998; Zavala-Hidalgo et al. 2003; Cherubin et al. 2006; Le Hénnaf et al. 2012; 

Schmitz, 2005; Leben, 2005), or even remote wind forcing from the Atlantic Ocean (Oey et al., 

2003; Chang and Oey, 2010).

Based on numerical modeling, Ezer et al. (2003) show that variability of YCu meanders is 

related to LC behavior, because the LCE-shedding occurs when the YCu core shifts to the east. 

However, the number of events in the model was insufficient to conclude a connection between 

the upstream position of the YCu core and the LCE shedding. Mooring data suggests that 

potential vorticity fluxes through the YC into the GoM are related to the extension and retraction

of the LC, favoring the release of LCE (Candela et al., 2002). However, there is no agreement 

even on the sign the vorticity anomalies that produce the extension-retreat of the LC (Oey et al.,

2003, Cherubin et al. 2006, Candela et al., 2002). Recent work suggests that another factor that 

can modulate the irregular interval of LC detachments is the fluctuations in transport and 

vorticity of the YCu, induced by changes in the local wind forcing (Chang and Oey, 2013). 

Other possible sources of variability are eddies from the Caribbean. Cyclones from the 

Caribbean may leak through the YC as cyclonic vorticity anomalies and once they pass beyond 

the Channel’s topographic constraint, they can intensify on the Campeche Bank (Schmitz, 2005:

its appendix; Athie et al., 2012) and lead to LCE detachment.
5

The idea that perturbations in the vicinity of the LC can produce LCE-shedding is related to 

cyclonic eddies along the edge of the LC and/or instability process (e.g., Cochrane, 1969; 

Fratantoni et al., 1998; Zavala-Hidalgo et al., 2003; Schmitz, 2005). These cyclones, known as 

LCFEs, have diameters of 50~ 150 km, swirl speeds of 0.30–0.50 ms-1and are generated or grow 

on both sides of the LC, near 86.5°W and 23.5°N on the Campeche Bank side (Zavala-Hidalgo et 

al., 2003; Oey et al., 2005) and on the eastern boundary of the LC, at the Tortugas Bank 

(Fratantoni et al., 1998). LCFE have been observed, either translating from Yucatan towards 

Florida (Cochrane, 1972; Hurlburt, 1986; Zavala-Hidalgo et al., 2003), from Florida towards 

Yucatan (Fratantoni et al., 1998), or from both sides at once (Schmitz, 2005), traveling at 15 

km/day (Vukovich et al., 1979; Hurlburt, 1986), as a common feature associated with the LCE 

detachment process.

The model study by Cherubin et al. (2006) provides some evidence in favor of a mixed 

barotropic-baroclinic instability process as the cause for the formation of LCFEs, pointing out 

the key role of the cyclonic vorticity belt around the LC in the instability. From infrared images, 

Vukovich (1988) showed that cyclonic perturbations are intensified on the northwestern sector of 

the LC. Using a high resolution numerical simulation, Le Hénaf et al. (2012) explained this 

intensification by a topographic effect: when the LC nears the northeastern Campeche slope, the 

cyclones aggregate positive potential vorticity anomalies in lower layers which intensify the 

whole vortex structure. 

Zavala-Hidalgo et al. (2003) using along-track altimetry, as well as Le Hénaf et al. (2012) 

from a high resolution numerical simulation, pointed out the formation of LCFEs on the western 

side of the LC along the Campeche Bank before a LCE detachment, but do not provide an 

explanation of the mechanisms involved in the formation of such LCFEs. Some of the issues 

mentioned above will be addressed in three chapters of the present report: Transport variability at 

the YC and its seasonality related to wind forcing; the connection between the YCu meandering 

and LCE releases between 2009 and 2011; and finally, the description of small LCFEs occurring 

near the Campeche Bank and possible factors controlling their formation and characteristics.
6

2. DEPLOYMENT SETTING AND DATA CHARACTERISTICS

Three sections of mooring arrays were deployed, nearly perpendicular, to the western edge of 

YCu and LC flows. A set of 7 moorings were deployed at WYC (Figure 1), designed to 

adequately sample the distribution of currents from the near-surface to the bottom at each of their 

locations (Figure 2) YUC2 was deployed around 50 m depth, YUC3 at 100 m, and YUC4 at 500 

m. These moorings consisted of Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) looking toward the 

surface, 300 KHz ADCPs for YUC2 and YUC3, and a 75 kHz ADCP for YUC4. YUC5, YUC6,

and YUC7 were installed at 1200 m, 1800 m and 2020 m, respectively and each had one 75 KHz 

ADCP deployed around 500 m depth measuring from this depth up to 30–60 m near the surface. 

YUC6 also had two 300 kHz ADCPs, one at 500 m measuring between this depth and 600 m and 

the other profiling between 650 m and 750 m depth. Finally, mooring YUC7 additionally had a 

300 kHz ADCP sampling downward at 500 m depth. Below 700–750 m down to the bottom, 

current measurements were taken by 5 or 6 either Aanderaa RCM11 or Nortek Aquadopp current 

meters, with the deepest instrument measuring at 10 m off the bottom, as shown in Figure 2. The 

deployment at the YC lasted for over 24 months between June 2009 and May 2011 with a one 

month gap due to service and redeployment of the moorings (Figure 4 and Table 1 and Table 2).

Additional 14-months of data at the YC between March 2008 and May 2009 were also used to 

complement the transport analysis in Chapter 4.

The LC enters the Gulf of Mexico through the YC with a northeastern predominant direction 

and then turns slightly to the west, hugging the slope and shelf break of the Yucatan Peninsula. 

Two mooring sections to the north of YC crossing from the shelf break to depths between 2000–

3500 m were deployed on the Campeche bank: section PE (“Plataforma Este” [“Eastern shelf” in 

Spanish]), consisting of five moorings and section PN (“Platforma Norte” [“Northern shelf” in 

Spanish]) with four moorings (Figure 3). The slope here is about 150 km wide, with irregular 

topography joining the slope to the abyss at 3500 m depth (Figure 3). Moorings were designed to 

efficiently monitor the currents throughout the water column, with 75 kHz ADCPs looking up 

from 450 m depth in the deep (> 500m) moorings and 300 kHz ADCPs at 100 m depth for the 

shallow moorings PE1 and PN1. Currents in the surface layer were recorded with 16 m depth

bins on the 75kHz ADCPs and 8 m bins on the 300 kHz ADCPs. A second 75 kHz ADCP at 

1000 m depth was installed on moorings PE4, PE5 and PN4 recording in the same fashion

sampling between 1000 m and about 550 m depth. Intermediate depths not sampled by the 

ADCPs were monitored with Aanderaa RCM11 or Nortek Aquadopp current meters at intervals 

of 300 m to 500 m, with the last device recording currents from 10 m off the bottom, as shown in 

Figure 3. The deployment at sections PE and PN lasted over 22 months, from June 2009 to April 

2011. There was previous data collected at section PN, starting on March 2008; therefore, this

section has observations for 36 months like the Yucatan section.

 

In the three sections most of the instruments worked as expected except for some mishaps 

which consisted in battery failure before recovery on the ADCP deployed at 740 m for YUC6 

and the ADCP deployed at 472 m for PE4 (Figure 4). Important failures that lasted almost the 

entire first period of measurements were the current-meters at 1155 m depth on mooring YUC7, 

and the top ADCPs of moorings PN4 and PE1. During the second period, it was the ADCP at 

YUC4 that failed. These instruments, factory delivered before deployment, had problems related 
7

to faulty seals around the transducer heads that lead to partial water leakages into the 

instruments’ electronics shortly after deployment, with the consequence of complete data loss. 

There were also problems with the firmware which caused some instruments to stop recording.

Objective mapping of the velocity data (sections 4.1 and 5) was carried out considering all 

functional instruments at each time-step including those with short time series. Tests to check the 

impact of missing data in the mapped fields showed no significant difference whether those data 

were included or not. 65% of the pressure sensors worked correctly. Most of the moorings had 

small vertical excursions (10–20 m), with a maximum down-draft of 90 m. Similarly, 85% of the 

temperature sensors deployed during the two periods operated adequately.

Table 1. Location and deployment depth of the 16 moorings between July 2009 and March 2010

(Canek 20).

Mooring Longitude W(°) Latitude N (°) Depth (m)

YUCN 86.34 21.69 488

 YUC2 86.49 21.54 58

 YUC3 86.45 21.57 112

 YUC4 86.36 21.57 485

 YUC5 86.23 21.60 1189

 YUC6 85.99 21.65 1870

 YUC7 85.73 21.65 2018

 PE1 87.01 22.38 118

 PE2 86.64 22.84 490

 PE3 86.43 23.06 989

 PE4 86.29 23.25 1983

 PE5 86.03 23.61 3342

 PEN 86.79 23.07 496

 PN1 87.92 23.76 118

 PN2 87.58 24.21 490

 PN3 87.42 24.40 1195

 PN4 87.12 24.96 3352
8

Table 2. Location and deployment depth of the 16 moorings between May 2010 and May 2011

(Canek 23).

Mooring Longitude W(°) Latitude N (°) Depth (m)

YUC2 86.49 21.54 58

YUC3 86.45 21.57 112

YUC5 86.23 21.60 1189

YUC6 85.99 21.65 1870

YUC7 85.73 21.65 2018

PE1 87.01 22.38 118

PE2 86.64 22.84 490

PE3 86.43 23.06 989

PE4 86.43 23.06 1983

PE5 86.03 23.61 3342

PEN 86.79 23.07 496

PN1 87.92 23.76 118

PN2 87.58 24.21 490

PN3 87.42 24.40 1195

PN4 87.12 24.96 3352

 89oW 88oW 87oW 86oW 85oW 84oW 83oW 

 19oN 

 20oN 

 21oN 

 22oN 

 23oN 

 24oN 

 25oN 

 26oN 

PN1

PN2

PN3

PN4

PE1

PE2

PE3

PE4

PE

PE

5

N

50

200

1000

20 1000

1

a) 0

Yucatan Cuba

Location of moorings in Gulf of Mexico

 20’ 87oW 40’ 20’ 86oW 40’ 

 21oN 

 15’ 

 30’ 

 45’ 

 22oN 

23 4

5

6 7

N

b)

Location the moorings in Yucatan

2− YUC2

3− YUC3

4− YUC4

5− YUC5

6− YUC6

7− YUC7

N− YUCN

Figure 1. (a) Location and labels of the Canek moorings along the Yucatan Peninsula. The 

rectangle in (a) marks the area shown in (b) for moorings over YC. Depth contours are in meters.
9

86.5°W 86.0°W 85.5°W 85.0°W

−2000

−1800

−1600

−1400

−1200

−1000

−800

−600

−400

−200

0 2 Yucatan 3 4 5 6 7 Cuba

ADCP

CRRS

Depth(m)

Canek deployment (Mar/ 2008 − May/ 2011)

Figure 2. Vertical distribution of instruments on the moorings deployed at YC between March 

2008 and May 2011.
10

87.0°W 86.8°W 86.6°W 86.4°W 86.2°W 86.0°W

−3000

−2500

−2000

−1500

−1000

−500

0 PE1 PE2 PE3 PE4 PE5

ADCP

CRRS

Depth(m)

Section PE (Jun/ 2009 − May/ 2011)

25.1°N 25.4°N 25.6°N 25.9°N 26.2°N 26.5°N

87.8°W 87.6°W 87.4°W 87.2°W 87.0°W

−3000

−2500

−2000

−1500

−1000

−500

0 PN1 PN2 PN3 PN4

ADCP

CRRS

Section PN (Mar/ 2008 − May/ 2011)

23.9°N 24.2°N 24.5°N 24.8°N 25.1°N

Figure 3. Vertical distribution of instruments over the PE and PN sections.
11

Figure 4. Data record history for the instruments in each mooring.
12

Figure 4. Data record history for the instruments in each mooring (continued).

In what follows, we present some examples of time-series from the different mooring 

sections. The raw data was filtered and processed independently by both CICESE and Leidos 

research teams. As a consistency check, we show that both processing methods produce very 

similar results, so either processed data can be used for the analysis.

Figure 5 shows a comparison between data processed by CICESE and Leidos from a single 

ADCP instrument for each of the mooring sections. Data were processed slightly differently 

(applied filters to suppress noise or to obtain de-tided low frequency time-series are different, 

filling of data gaps is done by Leidos). Panels in Figure 5 show either the component of the 

horizontal velocity along the section (u), which is eastward to northeastward or perpendicular to 
13

the section (v), which is northward to northwestward. Both data series show very similar results. 

For example, on YC (Figure 5), the ADCP located at 100m depth on mooring YUC3, shows 

more energy in the v-component, which is expected due to the presence of the YCu, with some 

high-frequency variability (~one week), particularly intense in the winter season. There are four 

events of high energy in both velocity components in May, September, and December 2010, as 

well as in February 2011, which are clearly represented by the two processed versions. 

Figure 5. Time-depth diagrams from ADCP instruments located on YUC3. The plots compare

the zonal (top two panels) and meridional (two lower panels) components of the velocity (in m/s)

using Leidos-processed data (first and third panels) and CICESE-processed data (second and 

fourth panels). Leidos processing fills the data gaps using an in-house method and CICESE 

leaves gaps intact. Filters are slightly different in their frequency transfer function.
14

Velocity variations on section PE (Figure 1) are shown considering u and v components of an 

instrument located on mooring PE3 at 500 m (Figure 6). As previously stated, the v series is of 

the velocity component perpendicular to the section and its maxima (positive) at PE can be 

interpreted as periods when the LC core is detected by the ADCP (northwest current direction) 

whereas negative values indicate presence of a cyclone and/or absence of the LC core (southeast 

current direction). This variability will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5. Current at 

section PN is mostly in the southeast direction, but some events are detected where current 

intensifies in the Northwest direction (see Figure 1 for moorings alignment and panels of Figure 

7 with PN1 data); during August–September 2009, June 2010 and September–November 2010. 

Figure 6. As in Figure 5, for ADCP instrument at 500 m depth on mooring PE3.
15

Figure 7. As in Figure 5, for ADCP instrument at 100 m depth on mooring PN1.

Data processed by CICESE and Leidos are also in good agreement for the two velocity 

components at the deepest current meter of each section. For YUC7 at 2018 m (Figure 8), the 

standard deviation of v is around 10 cm/s and a maximum value of 36 cm/s. The u-component at 

this depth has a maximum of 16 cm/s with standard deviation of 4 cm/s and the difference 

between the two versions does not exceed 3 cm/s. For PE5 at 3342 m depth (Figure 9), the 

difference between datasets is also smaller than 3 cm/s, while the standard deviation is ~6 cm/s 

for both components. For PN4 at 3334 m (Figure 10) the difference between the two datasets is 

slightly higher, exceeding several times 5 cm/s. Intense pulses are observed in the v-component 

at PN4, reaching 20 cm/s, while the standard deviation is 7 cm/s. The high differences between 

both versions occur when the intense pulses are present. The maximum intensity of the ucomponent at this depth is 35 cm/s with standard deviation of 11 cm/s. During April 2010, the 

moorings were not deployed due to maintenance and rotation of the equipment. The Leidosprocessed version interpolates this gap, while CICESE-processed data does not. 
16

Figure 8. Zonal (top panel) and meridional (middle panel) components of velocity (in m/s) of the 

deepest current meter of Yucatan section. Comparison between Leidos-processed data (red line) 

and Canek-processed data (black line). The difference between both versions is shown in the 

lower panel for each velocity component.
17

Figure 9. As in Figure 8, for PE section. 
18

Figure 10. As in Figure 8 for PN section.
19

3. DATA ANALYSIS

3.1 MEAN CURRENT PROFILES AND BASIC STATISTICS

Figure 11, 13, and 17 show show the vertical profiles of speed of mean current (left panels), 

root mean square variability (STD, middle panels) and the ratio of sub-inertial velocity variance 

to total variance (right panels) for three moorings at the YC, calculated separately from June 

2009 to March 2010 (top panels) and from May 2010 to May 2011 (bottom panels). Mean 

currents are intense near the surface with values higher than 100 cm/s at moorings YUC5 and 

YUC6, and a standard deviation of 25 cm/s. Further east, at YUC7, the mean near surface current 

reduces to about 50 cm/s with STD of 20 cm/s; this indicates that the highest speeds are found 

mainly in the region of moorings YUC4, YUC5 and YUC6. This is confirmed by the mean 

current vector profiles for each mooring at the YC shown in Figure 19. The principal direction is 

to the north, from the surface down to 500–1000 m depth (depending on the mooring depth) with 

the most intense currents observed between YUC4 and YUC6 for both periods. Interestingly, the 

mean current at YUC7 decreases from the surface, down to 1000 m with a minimum magnitude 

of 3 cm/s and then increases slightly, from this depth down to the bottom at 2020 m to 5–10 

cm/s, with a nearly constant north-northeast direction throughout the water column. Similar 

behavior was observed on moorings YUC5 and YUC6, but there, the current decreases from the 

surface down to 750 m depth with values less than 5 cm/s of magnitude and STD of less than 10 

cm/s. Below those depths, the current changes its northward direction (above 1000 m) to a 

southwest direction (below 1000 m, (Figure 19) intensifying near the bottom to over ~8 cm/s on 

mooring YUC6.

The sub-inertial currents dominate the observed variability representing more than 60 % of 

the total variance from the surface to the mid-water near 1000m depth on the three moorings at 

Yucatan. Near 700 m depth, the ratio of sub-inertial to total variance starts to decrease and can 

get as low as 25% between 1000 m and 1200 m (Figure 13, mooring YUC7). It is worth noticing 

is the fact that there is a general tendency for high frequency variations to increase their 

importance relative to sub-inertial motions after 700–800 m depth, having their largest impact 

around 1000–1200 meters. For both periods in YUC7, the sub-inertial currents dominate again 

below 1500 m where an increase of the mean current was observed near the bottom. This 

increased in mean current, as well as in flow variability near the bottom through the center of the 

YC, can be related with deep flow variability, below the 6°C isotherm, which has been 

associated with changes in the LC extension at time-periods larger than 20 days (Maul et al., 

1985 and Bunge et al., 2002). Also interesting is the relative increase of high frequency 

variability near the surface and near the bottom on mooring YUC5 (Figure 11). 
20

Figure 11. Speed of mean current profile, standard deviation (STD) profile, and ratio of 

subinertial to total current variance measured by the instruments on YUC5 at the YC. Red dots 

indicate the specific depth of measurements with the ADCPs and current meters. 
21

Figure 12. As in Figure 11 for mooring YUC6 at the YC. 
22

Figure 13. As in Figure 11 for mooring YUC7 at the YC.
23

Section PE is located further north of the YC and principally measures the western edge of 

the LC. Figure 14 shows vertical profiles of mean current speed, STD value and ratio of subinertial velocity variance to total variance for this section; just as Figure 11 but for different 

section. The highest mean velocities are observed on moorings PE2, PE3 (not shown), PE4 

(Figure 15) and slightly lower on PE5 (Figure 16); it varies between 50 and 70 cm/s, which is 

lower than the mean current at YC. The STD is of the same order of magnitude as the mean 

speed (~50 cm/s), and both gradually decrease until 1000 m depth, where current speed is a bit 

lower than 10 cm/s and is nearly constant down to the bottom (2000 m to PE4) with a slight 

increase (15 cm/s) at 3500m in PE5. The mean direction of the current at moorings PE2, PE3 and 

PE4 is northwest and remains the same in the whole water column for PE2 and PE3 (Figure 11).

However, current direction at PE5 is mainly to the northeast in the upper layers changing 

direction below 1200m, a change also observed on mooring PE4.

Sub-inertial current variability accounts for 80% of the total variability from near surface to 800 

m depth at PE4 and PE5; below this depth, the ratio of sub-inertial to total variance starts to 

decrease down to 20% at 1200 m, showing different behavior on moorings PE4 and PE5. On 

PE4, high frequency current dominates variability between 1200 m and the bottom, whereas on 

PE5 variability is similar to the one found on YUC7, with a minimum value of sub-inertial to 

total variance ratio at 1200 m (~20%) that increases again down to the bottom, where sub-inertial 

current represents 80% of the variability between 1700 m and 3500 m depth. Over the shelf 

break, mooring PE1 shows a different behavior compared with moorings further offshore: mean 

current magnitude is ~20 cm/s at the surface, decreasing with depth to values below 10 cm/s near 

the bottom at 110 m depth. STD values show similar behavior and magnitude as the mean 

current throughout the water column, but surface mean current direction is to the southwest, 

rotating in a spiral to the bottom (Figure 11). Sub-inertial current accounts for 60% of the 

variance between the surface and 75 m depth, decreasing to 40% near the bottom. 
24

Figure 14. As in Figure 11, for mooring PE1.
25

Figure 15. As in Figure 11, for mooring PE4.
26

Figure 16. As in Figure 11, for mooring PE5.
27

Moving on to section PN, we see that the highest mean current speds are observed on 

moornings PN2 and PN3, with a magnitude of 75 cm/s near the surface (Figure 17) and with a 

northwest mean direction (Figure 21). A change in current direction is observed at mid-water 

depth in almost all moorings of this section, together with a relative current intensification near 

the bottom. This shift in direction is observed at 60–80 m on PN1, at 400 m on PN2 and at 1200 

m on PN4 (on PN3 this depth cannot be accurately detected due to instrument failure at depths 

between 500 and 1000m). Mean speed near the surface is lower than 10 cm/s on PN1 and about 

20 cm/s on PN4. STD values on moorings PN3 and PN4 (Figure 17 and Figure 18, respectively), 

show that the fluctuations of the current are as intense as the mean speed values and both 

decrease at a similar rate from the surface down to the bottom. The variance is dominated by 

sub-inertial currents from the surface to 3500m depth on PN4 and from the surface to 1000 m 

depth on PN3. In the latter the ratio of sub-inertial to total current variance reduces to 20% near 

the bottom (1200 m depth). For completeness and reference, a set of 17 tables for each 

measuring period containing the basic statistics (mean, standard deviation, maxima, and minima) 

of the horizontal velocity components is included in Appendix A.

The vector plots of the mean velocity profile from the moorings show general agreement and 

similarity of the profiles between the two deployment periods (Figure 19, 20, 21). It is worth 

mentioning that the ADCP measurements between 500–600 m depth on mooring YUC6 appear 

to be faulty in current direction. The jump in current direction is observed in both periods, but 

was measured with different ADCPs (300 kHz workhorse) in each period and is not continuous 

with the measurements above or below. 

Figure 23 and Figure 24 show variability ellipses and also depict the mean current vectors at 

different depths for the three sections. The YCu is detected by the high mean velocities at 

moorings YUC4, YUC5, YUC6 and to a lesser extent at YUC7 with an average speed around 

100 cm/s, which is clearly higher than current fluctuations . The variability in this area is mainly 

oriented across the Yucatan Channel, while further west at YUC2 and YUC3, ellipses are 

oriented along the channel with higher magnitude than the mean vectors. At 450m the current 

speed diminishes rapidly to about 20–25 cm/s for YUC4 to YUC7, the variability is almost of the 

same order of magnitude as the average, oriented in the along channel direction.

Current fluctuations at sections PE and PN are of magnitude similar to the mean values, close 

to 70 cm/s near the surface and 20 cm/s at 450 m depth. Variability ellipses are oriented

prevalently along the topography over the slope from the surface to the bottom, but going from 

parallel at PE2, PE3, PN1, PN2, and PN3 to almost perpendicular to the isobaths at PE5; at PN4 

the variability intensifies being higher than the mean current of 20 cm/s and without dominant 

orientation. 

It is found that the fluctuations over the slope are oriented along the topography from 

Yucatan to section PN practically throughout the water column, but showing two different 

directions of the mean current as function of depth; near the surface the mean current direction is 

northwest, while near the bottom (at 500m for PN1, 1000 m for YUC5, PE3, PN3, as well as 

~2000m depth for YUC6 and PE3, Figure 24) the mean current is to the south following the 

1000 m contour of the topography toward the Caribbean. Further down at depth, the mean 
28

current direction varies with depth at 1000, 2300 and 2800 m, suggesting a possible spiral turn, 

which was also observed in the mean profiles (Figure 20 and Figure 21); variability there, is 

largely higher than the mean current.

Figure 17. As in Figure 11, for moorings PN3.
29

Figure 18. As in Figure 11, for moorings PN4.
30

Figure 19. Mean horizontal current profile (vectors in 3-D space) observed at each of the six 

moorings at the YC. The left panels show the profile averaged between July 2009 and March 

2010, and the right panels averaged between May 2010 and May 2011. The east-west/northsouth components are in the abscissa/ordinate directions with each vector starting at its 

corresponding depth.
31

Figure 19. Continues.
32

Figure 20. As in Figure 19, for moorings on section PE. For the exception of the upper left panel 

the average is for only the month of July 2009.
33

Figure 20. Continues.
34

Figure 21. As in Figures 19 and 20, for moorings on section PN.
35

Figure 21. Continues.
36

Figure 22. Mean and variability ellipses of the measured currents at 50m depth.
37

Figure 23. Mean and variability ellipses of the measured currents at 450 m depth.
38

Figure 24. Mean and variability ellipses of the measured currents at the indicated depths

(numbers are indicated with colors). 
39

The vector time series of low-pass subinertial currents at several depths in moorings YUC2 

and YUC3 (Figure 25 and Figure 26), over the shelf (at 60 m and 100 m, respectively), show a 

dominant current to the north (into the Gulf). There are some episodes of southward flow, which 

are present at both moorings; interestingly, the duration of these episodes increases with depth, 

being slightly detectable near the surface and more evident from ~30 m depth down to bottom. 

The first event lasts from July to September 2009, while a second long-lasting southward flow 

event was observed from April to October 2010 interrupted by an intense northward flow of 

about three weeks in July. At YUC3, the signature of the first event was observed at 30 m and 46 

m depth, as northward-southward pulses with periods of ~15 days; It is noteworthy that these 

two events are also detected at mooring YUC5 at 150 and 300 m depth (Figure 27), which is 

located quite to the center of the channel but still over the shelf edge (see Figure 2). Further 

north, these two southward events are observed on the shelf break, at PE2 and PE3 throughout 

the water column (Figure 30 and Figure 31). Over the shelf at PE1 (Figure 29) and PN1 (Figure 

34), variability appears to be from a different origin; northwest-southeast oscillations reaching 

the 50 cm/s are observed at PE1; while at PN1 southward flow dominates with lower magnitude 

~30cm/s and only few events of higher current events (~50 cm/s) with northwestern direction.

In the center of the YC (from mooring YUC5 to YUC7, Figure 27 and Figure 28) the flow 

appears to be divided in two main layers, with the upper levels dominated by the strong current 

(>70 cm/s) with direction mainly to the north varying slightly to the northeast; only at YUC7, 

and with no southward flows detected between 50 and 500 m depth. Below that level, reversals 

of the current are frequent; however the variability between YUC5 and YUC7 is apparently not 

connected; below 590 m depth. Fortnightly fluctuations O (25–50 cm/s) are observed at ~600 m 

and ~700m depth at YUC5, from where the current decreases rapidly down to the bottom (< 10 

cm/s at 1189 m). In the deepest part of the YC at YUC7, current fluctuations have no clear 

periodicity varying north-south below 1000 m and intensifying near the bottom at 2020 m. As 

mentioned before, this intensification is also observed in the deepest moorings of the 

downstream sections (PE5 and PN4) near 3300 m (see Figure 33 and Figure 36) and may 

indicate the presence of topographic Rossby waves (Hamilton, 1990, 2007).

A flow divided into two layers seems to be a feature also for sections PE and PN. Above 1000 

m depth, the intense current (reaching ~100 cm/s) from northwest to northeast varies with some 

reversals during June 2009 and April 2010 (see Figure 33 and Figure 36). A strong 

northward/southward current (>1m/s) in the upper layer here, is likely to be associated with the 

passage of cyclonic/anticyclonic eddies. Likewise, episodes of weak currents seem to be related 

with eastwards shifts of the LC off the section, particularly at PE5 (Athie et al., 2012). Due to 

the highly variable path of the LC, it is not necessarily expected that the signals at PE and PN are 

correlated, which is the case here. 

One important feature on the deep slope at moorings PN4 and PN3 (Figure 35 and Figure 36)

are the intense current pulses (>15 cm/s) across the section (or the topography), with direction 

northwest-southeast, observed in current meters at 1500, 2800, and 3300 m depth. From model 

analysis, the northern topographic slope of Campeche Bank has been identified as a preferred 

site for deep cyclogenesis by Oey (2007), right in the area where section PN is located, which 

could be related to these observations.
40

Figure 25. Vector time series from mooring YUC2 at the YC; different depths are indicated. 
41

Figure 26. As in Figure 25 from mooring YUC3 at the YC.
42

Figure 27. As in Figure 25 from mooring YUC5 at the YC.
43

Figure 28. As in Figure 25 from mooring YUC7 at the YC.
44

Figure 29. Vector time series from mooring PE1; different depths are indicated. 

2010 2011
45

Figure 30. As in Figure 29 from mooring PE2. Note the change in the velocity scale.
46

Figure 31. As in Figure 29 from mooring PE3. Note the change in the velocity scale.
47

Figure 32. As in Figure 29 from mooring PE4. Note the change in the velocity scale.
48

Figure 33. As in Figure 29 from mooring PE5. Note the change in the velocity scale.
49

Figure 34. Vector time series from moorings PN1 and PN2, different depths are indicated.
50

Figure 35. As in Figure 34, from mooring PN3. Note the change in the velocity scale. 
51

Figure 36. As in Figure 34, from mooring PN4. Note the change in the velocity scale.
52

3.2 EMPIRICAL ORTHOGONAL FUNCTION ANALYSIS

Using Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis of the currents in each mooring, one 

can decompose the variance of the currents into vertically coherent patterns that can help 

understand the behavior of the variability observed on each mooring. Depending on the degree of 

polarization of the current data being analyzed, one can either arrange the data along independent 

components (zonal and meridional), maintaining the analysis in the real domain, as done here, or 

combine the horizontal currents into a complex vector. For the case when the observed currents 

are not well polarized, the complex arrangement usually results in a more compact and clear 

representation of the patterns. In our present case, the EOF analysis was computed for each 

mooring independently, also to evenly weight current observations in the vertical and to take into 

account the longest measurement interval, currents were linearly interpolated to nominal depths 

(20 m) using only the longest common time series in each mooring. 

The first two modes of the subinertial currents were grouped in a map showing the spatial 

structure of the average vector, considering the vectors above 500 m depth of both modes for all 

the moorings; although the EOF analyses were processed separately for each mooring and

considering all the data throughout the water column (Figure 37). The first mode usually 

represents more than about 60% of the variability of the currents in the vertical profile at each 

mooring, for the second mode the percentage of explained variance varies around 10–30%. In the 

central channel, where variability-ellipse analysis indicates the mean current is larger than the 

variability, YUC5, YUC6, and YUC7 show a common spatial behavior, as well as the vertical 

structure of EOF1, which are mainly oriented in the along-channel direction, while EOF2 shows 

rather a cross-channel orientation. The EOF time series are also called Principal Components 

(PC). From PC1 series it can be observed that between July and October, current on the central 

channel is more intense (positive anomalies), while currents over the western side have negative 

anomalies, indicating a slower flow (Figure 38). In the western channel, the fist EOF of 

moorings YUC2 and YUC3 represents high-frequency variability (see PCs of Figure 38), which 

are highly correlated (Table 3). Variability in YUC7 has an inverse behavior relative to the 

western side of the channel (YUC2, YUC3 and YUC5), but does not show this high-frequency 

variability.
53

Table 3. Correlation values between principal components of moorings at the YC (upper half of 

the table), considering only the first EOF mode over the 500 m depth; 95% significant (not 

significant) values are indicate in black (gray). Blue values represent the effective degrees of 

freedom, calculated from the expression given by Chelton (1983), which considers the crosscovariance between the series.

Moorings YUC2 YUC3 YUC5 YUC6 YUC7

YUC2 0.82 0.35 -0.19 -0.5

YUC3 56 0.49 -0.19 -0.58

YUC5 68 32 0.39 -0.56

YUC6 91 73 59 0.24

YUC7 51 34 25 48

The EOF analysis unveiled an interesting behavior of currents at sections PE and PN

(Figure 37). In all the moorings, vectors of the first mode are oriented parallel to the bathymetry, 

with variability exceeding 0.5m/s, especially in moorings over the slope and diminishing in 

intensity toward higher depths. The EOF2 vectors are all oriented perpendicular to the 

bathymetry and with a similar intensity of about 0.3 m/s. Mooring PE5, however, shows different 

orientations in both modes compared to moorings over the slope. This is probably caused by a 

change in the bathymetry at this position, so even if different from the others, EOF1 (EOF2)

vectors at PE5 remain oriented parallel (perpendicular) to the bathymetry. The PC1 

corresponding to the first mode at mooring PE1 is the only one of this section that shows high 

frequency variability in winter, similar to the one observed in the near-coast moorings in 

Yucatan Figure 40). The PC1 of modes at PE2 and PE3 (over the slope) have, in general, an 

inverse behavior than the PC1 of PE5, with PE4 showing a less coherent anti-correlation (a sort 

of transition). That is, positive (northward) anomalies at PE5 indicating intensification of the LC 

there are associated with negative anomalies over the shallower slope at moorings PE2 and PE3. 

This suggests an off-shore movement of the LC core. In contrast to section PE where most of the 

high frequency variability is contained in the second mode PC2 (Figure 41), the first mode at 

section PN (Figure 42), shows high frequency variations particularly between January and May, 

2010, along the slope, i.e., at moorings PN2 and PN3. High frequency variability (in this first 

mode), is weaker during the winter of the second period.
54

Figure 37. Map of the spatial structure averaged over the 500m depth of the first (black arrows) 

and second (blue arrows) EOF modes, calculated for each mooring individually.
55

Figure 38. Time series (also called principal components) of the first EOF modes at the YC; time 

series are lagged by 4 for clarity. 
56

Figure 39. As Figure 38, of the second EOF modes at the YC.
57

Figure 40. Time series (also called principal components) of the first and EOF mode for section 

PE. Vertical axis is shifted 4 units for each time-series for clarity.
58

Figure 41. As Figure 40, of the second EOF mode for section PE.
59

Figure 42. Time series (also called principal components) of the first EOF mode for section PN.

Vertical axis is shifted 4 units for each time-series for clarity.

Figure 43. As Figure 42, of the second EOF mode for section PN.
60

The variance presented by the second mode is of higher frequency than the first mode with PC2 

series showing, in occasions, events consisting of strong (high amplitude) pulses that appear to 

propagate in the mooring arrays, particularly on sections PE and PN. Notice the small lag 

between the timing of the pulses on moorings over the slope with respect to the one in the deep 

moorings, width the pulses appearing first in the shallower moorings. These pulses do not show a 

clear seasonal preference (see Figure 41 and Figure 43). 

Figure 44 to Figure 58 shows the vertical structure of the first two EOFs at each mooring as well 

as their principal components. Current anomalies represented by the first mode are generally 

unidirectional with current speed decreasing with depth. Over the Yucatan slope (YUC3, YUC4,

and YUC5), a change in direction is observed in the second mode of variability suggestive of a 

first baroclinic mode structure (see Figure 44 and Figure 45).

Figure 44. First two EOF modes for the observed subinertial current calculated for mooring

YUC3 at the YC. Spatial structure and its principal component are indicated for the first (black) 

and second (blue) modes.
61

Figure 45. As in Figure 44, for mooring YUC5 at the YC. 
62

Figure 46. As in Figure 44, for mooring YUC6 at the YC.
63

Figure 47. As in Figure 44, for mooring YUC7 at the YC.
64

Figure 47.Continues.

EOF analysis was performed individually to velocity time series of current meters, for moorings 

YUC6 and YUC7 at different depths, to evaluate the correlation of the principal components in 

the central deep portion of the YC. Current PCs at YUC6 (Figure 48) show high-frequency 

variability that is correlated below 1000 m depth (correlation values are significant at 95% 

confidence level). Interestingly, variability between ~1000 and ~1900m are significantly 

correlated (r= 0.47). For YUC7 (Figure 49), variability below 1500m depth are highly correlated 

(r > 0.9), showing pulses of the same amplitude throughout this part of column, down to ~2000 

m depth. PC at 961 m have lower correlation with the deepest flow, but still significant (r= 0.48), 

suggesting a different variability at this depth and below 1500 m depth. Correlation of PCs 

between YUC6 and YUC7 were not significant.
65

Figure 48. Principal components of the first mode EOF performed to currents time series below 

800m depth for mooring YUC6, individually. Time series are offset by 5 units for clarity. 

Correlations values between contiguous series are indicated between them.
66

Figure 49. Principal components of the first mode EOF performed to currents time series below 

800m depth for mooring YUC7, individually. Vertical axis is shifted 5 units for each time-series 

for clarity. Correlations values between contiguous series are indicated between them.
67

Figure 50. First two EOF modes for the observed subinertial current calculated for mooring PE1. 

Spatial structure and its principal component are indicated for the first (black) and second (blue) 

modes.
68

Figure 51. As in Figure 50, for mooring PE3.
69

Figure 52. As in Figure 50, for ADCP installed at 1000 m depth at mooring PE4.
70

Figure 53. As in Figure 50, for mooring PE5. 
71

Figure 53. Continues.
72

Figure 54. As in Figure 50, for mooring PEN. 
73

Figure 55. First two EOF modes for the observed subinertial current calculated for mooring PN1. 

Spatial structure and its principal component are indicated for the first (black) and second (blue) 

modes.
74

Figure 56. As in Figure 55, for mooring PN2.
75

Figure 57. As in Figure 55, for mooring PN3.
76

Figure 58. As in Figure 55, for mooring PN4.
77

Figure 58. Continues.
78

4. SEASONALITY OF THE YUCATAN CURRENT

Two years of continuous measurements of the flow through the YC (Sep., 1999 to May, 

2001) revealed a mean transport of 23.1 Sv (Sheinbaum et al., 2002; Ochoa et al., 2003). This 

value was 20% smaller than transport of 28 Sv previously estimated for this channel (Johns et al., 

2002), and also smaller than the 32 Sv estimated from long-term cable measurements monitoring 

transports at the Florida Straits (Larsen, 1992, Baringer and Larsen, 2002). Moreover, recent

measurements (between 2001 and 2006) from shipboard ADCP, indicate a similar transport of 

around 30 Sv through YC and Florida Straits, and suggest that both transports are linked at 

seasonal time scales (Rousset and Beal, 2010; 2011, see also Johns et al., 2002). The new 

measurements of currents at the YC from the Canek Project, give new evidence of the YCu

variability. Unfortunately, only the western side of the channel (west of 85.6°W) was measured 

between March, 2008 and May, 2010. This new 3-year velocity time-series from Canek data is 

analyzed and compared with the transports estimated by the Canek group during 1999–2001 

(Sheinbaum et al., 2002), the results reported by Explorer of the Seas (Rousset and Beal, 2010, 

2011), as well as the seasonality of the YCu, recently studied by Chang and Oey (2013) in their 

numerical models.

4.1 TRANSPORT VARIABILITY AT THE YUCATAN CHANNEL

The objective mapping method described in Ochoa et al. (2003) was used to interpolate the 

data to a regular grid and then calculate the mean profiles through the WYC and their standard 

deviation for each period of measurements (Figure 59). Each mean profile and its standard 

deviation are in good agreement with the average profiles previously reported from observations 

(Sheinbaum et al., 2002; Candela et al., 2002; Rousset and Beal, 2010) and estimated from 

numerical models (e.g. Ezer et al., 2003). YCu is observed west of 85.5°W between the surface 

and 800m depth, with a mean velocity of 1.2 m/s in its core. It is noteworthy that the moorings 

installed in the western side of YC, practically covered the whole YCu (see also Figure 2), as 

well as their changes over the time. The highest standard deviation was observed at the surface 

on the western side of the channel (~0.3 m/s), due to counter-flows present in the most western 

side of the channel (see also Figure 25). Below 800 m depth, the mean flow at the center of the 

channel is into the Gulf direction; while at the edges of the channel the flow direction is 

southward (see also Figure 19), with features such as the current into the GoM, near the bottom 

at YUC7 and current out of the GoM over the shelf break in the deepest current meters of YUC5 

and YUC6. In general, results over the five years (1999–2001 and 2008–2011) show a very 

stable average profile.

On the western side of the YC, the mean transport for the three consecutive years (March 2008 to 

May 2011) was 24.4 Sv with standard deviation of 4.1 Sv, which is around 2 Sv higher than the 

22.3 Sv estimated at the western side during 1999-2001 (Figure 60). Note that average transport 

values were quite stable between 2008 and 2011 (Table 4). It is also worth mentioning that mean 

transport estimated for the whole YC in the 2010-2011 period was 27.1 ± 0.3 Sv, with a standard 

deviation of 3.6 Sv. This value is 4–5 Sv higher than the transport estimated by Canek Project 
79

during the 1999–2001 period and more in agreement with the 28 Sv previously reported for this 

channel (Johns et al., 2002), as well as the 30.5 Sv measured by Explorer of the Seas (Rousset 

and Beal, 2011). Interestingly, transport on the eastern side (east of 85.6°W) was 2.8 Sv between 

2010 and 2011, which is also ~2 Sv higher than the 0.6 Sv measured between 1999 and 2001. 

These results suggest that the southward flow on the eastern side was more intense in the 1999–

2001 period indicative of a stronger Cuban Countercurrent. Inter-annual variability of the 

currents, particularly on the eastern side of the YC is currently investigated using altimetry data, 

but such results are beyond the scope of the present report.

Table 4. Mean transport and its standard deviation (in Sverdrups: 1Sv= 106 m

3

/s), estimated for 

the whole YC (total), and divided in two parts: west of 85.6°W (western) and east of this 

longitude (eastern). Standard error with a 95% confidence level, are also indicated for the total 

transports. The calculation was made for each period of continuous measurements of Canek 

Project.

Period Transport (Sv) Standard deviation

Total Western Eastern Total Western

Sep/1999–Jun/2000 23.8± 0.3 23.1 0.7 3.2

Jul/2000–May/2001 22.1± 0.2 21.5 0.6 3.1

Mar/2008–May/2009 ---- 24.2 ± 0.5 ---- ---- 3.9

Jul/2009–Mar/2010 ---- 24.8 ± 0.6 ---- ---- 3.6

May/2010–May/2011 27.1 ± 0.3 24.3 2.8 3.6
80

Figure 59. Mean along-channel velocity from objective mapped current observations at the WYC 

(top panels, black line indicates the cero velocity contour). Standard deviation of velocity fields 

(bottom panels). Calculations were performed separately for each period of Canek 

measurements. 

Figure 60. Time evolution of transport through the WYC (west of 85.6°W). Left panel: Canek 

measurements between September 1999 and May 2001, showed for reference. Right panel: 

Canek measurements between March 2008 and May 2011.
81

Empirical orthogonal functions of the along-channel velocity (velocity perpendicular to the 

mooring section) data were computed to provide a compact description of its spatial and 

temporal variability. Usually, most of the variance of the spatially distributed time series falls in 

the first few empirical orthogonal functions. A singular value decomposition of the data matrix 

was used to obtain eigenvalues, eigenvectors and time varying amplitudes (principal 

components) of the sample covariance matrix of velocity in the YC. The first and second modes 

represent 36% and 24% of the variance, respectively. The spatial structure of the first mode 

(EOF1, Figure 61) shows that the flow anomalies at the center of the channel are 180° out of 

phase with those of the western side; the change of sign at about 86.0°W. The western core has 

higher amplitude with velocity anomalies reaching 0.9 m/s. Below 1000 m, the flow in the whole 

western channel is in the same direction as the central near-surface core, although magnitudes 

are smaller there. The temporal evolution of this mode (PC1) shows some seasonality or slope in 

the series, with negative phases between May and September, that means intensified current 

(positive anomalies) in the central channel, with weaker currents (negative anomalies) on the 

western side. The positive phase with most intense currents at the western side of the channel is 

observed between November and April. Notice, however, that higher frequency (60–100 days) 

variability appears to be stronger than the seasonal signal. The EOF1 can be interpreted as 

representing horizontal movements (meanders) of the YCu with the positive anomalies marking 

the core of this current. The highest amplitude of this mode seems to occur during the negative 

phases, i.e. when the YCu core is away from the coast (in the central channel), with current 

anomalies reaching -0.9 m/s on the western side and +0.5 m/s over the central channel, with 

maxima in July 2009 and July 2010. 

These results are partially in agreement with the EOF1 calculated from the first mooring 

deployment of Canek (1999–2000) and reported by Abascal et al. (2003), who interpreted the 

EOF1 also as indicating current meanders, with maximum velocity on the western channel in 

November and in the central channel in September–October. However, those seasonal phases are 

not that clear in the second period of the Canek deployment (2000–2001, Candela et al., 2003).

The spatial structure of the second mode of variability (EOF2, Figure 62) shows flow 

anomalies centered at 85.9°W over 1000m depth and weaker anomalies with opposite sign over 

the Yucatan slope. Further at depth, there is a small flow intensified towards the bottom in the 

center of the channel, with opposite sign to the near-surface flow, which can be associated with 

intensified variability observed near the bottom at mooring YUC7 and described in section 3.1.
82

Figure 61. Spatial structure of the first EOF mode (top panel, black line indicates the zero 

contour) at the YC. Time evolution (principal component) of the first EOF mode.

The time-series of the second mode (PC2) does not show a “slope” as PC1 does, but rather, 

oscillates around zero between positive-negative phases, with a period around 60–80 days. This 

behavior could be interpreted as increase-decrease pulses of the YCu, or even meanders of the 

current. PC1 also shows this 60–80 days variability and both principal components appear to be 

out of phase with PC2 leading PC1 by 15 days. This is particularly noticeable during the second 

and third deployments (July 2009–May 2011); although between March 2008 and May 2009, the 

60–80-day variability is also observed, there are some periods without any connection between 

PC1 and PC2 (November–May 2009). Low-pass transport series also show these 60–80 days 

pulses, however high amplitude events in the series are not explained by a single mode but rather 

seem to agree with the sum of the two modes, since depending on the date, the transport pulses 

are in phase either with PC1 or PC2 (Figure 63).
83

Figure 62. As in Figure 61, for the second EOF mode at YC.
84

Figure 63. Standardized anomalies of the low-pass transport series from the WYC (black line),

compared with the principal components of the first (blue line, top panel) and second (red line, 

bottom panel) EOF modes at the YC. 
85

4.2 SEASONAL VARIATIONS OF THE YUCATAN CURRENT AND LOOP CURRENT 

Seasonality of the flow through the YCu and the LC has been the focus of many publications, 

and is associated in many cases with the seasonal variations of the wind (e.g. Molinari et al., 

1978; Sturges and Evans, 1983; Rousset and Beal, 2011; Chang and Oey, 2012). However, some 

other studies did not observe strong seasonal variations of the YC transport, although the timeseries were short, (e.g. Sheinbaum et al., 2002; Candela et al., 2003; Abascal et al., 2003.). The 

main objective of this chapter is to determine whether there is a significant seasonal cycle in the 

YCu and/or transport, using the three consecutive years of observations between April 2008 and 

May 2011 in the WYC. Earlier observations from September 1999 to May 2001 were also used 

to complement the analysis. It is important to note that monthly time-series for seasonal cycle 

calculations were made considering the whole YCu transport in the periods September 1999–

May 2001 and May 2010–May 2011, when data for the whole YC were available. We also 

computed seasonal cycles considering only the WYC with data from April 2008–May 2011, 

sometimes taking into account the 1999–2001 data. The periods used in a particular analysis are 

indicated in the text and figures.

Seasonal cycle of full YC transport (Figure 64) shows an annual maximum (positive anomaly) in 

summer (June–August) and another weaker relative maximum during January which is difficult 

to defend as significant (based on the number of degrees of freedom). This behavior differs from 

the semiannual cycle calculated by Rousset and Beal (2011), from 2001-2006 non-continuous 

measurements of shipboard ADCP observations, with two similar maxima in summer and late 

winter. When the total YC transport is divided in its western and eastern channel contributions 

(Figure 65), it is quite clear there is inverse behavior between both sides of the channel (see also

Figure 67) and a substantial compensation if anomalies are added up. The biannual cycle, 

according to Rousset and Beal (2011), has maxima in April and August. Our WYC data show a 

clear maximum in April and a weaker one in August. Seasonal variations on both sides of the YC 

are around 4–5 Sv, while those of total YC transport are O(1–2 Sv), which reflect the 

compensation in variability between the eastern and western sides of the YC. A similar WYC 

cycle is observed not only in the 1999–2001 and 2010–2011 Canek measurement periods, but 

also from the three years of consecutive observations between 2008 and 2011 (Figure 66). 

Chang and Oey (2012, 2013) carried out numerical model simulations spanning 20 years 

and analyzed also altimetry data. They propose an asymmetric semiannual cycle in YC transport 

with a strong maximum in summer and a weaker one in late winter. They suggest the cycle is 

related to the seasonal Trade wind intensification in the western Caribbean (Cayman Sea). To 

explore this issue and see if our directly measured transport data bear some connection with the 

regional wind forcing, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ERAInterim reanalysis winds were used to calculate the wind-stress (τx, τy) and the wind stress curl 

( inside the areas indicated in Figure 68, i.e. the Cayman Sea and the GoM. For this 

calculation, only WYC transport variability was compared to wind forcing anomalies for the 

periods (September 1999–May 2001 and April 2008–December 2010, Figure 69). The transport 

time-series was ended on December 31, 2010 to match the wind time-series of high resolution 
86

data we had available. The transports as well as the wind series were filtered with a 40-day lowpass Lanczos filter.

Mean values for 

X



were -0.05 Nm-2for the Cayman Sea and 0.02 Nm-2for the GoM 

with average 



values of 1.6 x 10-8 Nm-3and 2.8 x 10-8 Nm-3 in the Cayman Sea and the 

GoM, respectively. In the Cayman Sea, the easterlies (negative 

X



) intensify with equal 

magnitude in February and June–July, while wind from the east in the GoM decreases. 

Stronger easterly winds and wind-stress 

X



are observed in the GoM during April–June, 

while, at the same time, easterlies reduce their magnitude in the Cayman Sea. The



also 

shows a semi-annual cycle, but asymmetric, with anticyclonic anomalies (negative values) in 

February and to a lesser extent in July. These precede transport increases that occur one or 

two months later in April and August on the WYC (Figure 69). From May to June, wind 

from the east in the GoM intensifies and the



is predominantly anti-cyclonic while the 

transport and westward wind in the Cayman Sea are at its minimum (Figure 69). 

Figure 64. Seasonal cycle of transport through the YC (total transport anomalies indicated with 

black line), calculated between September 1999–May 2001 and May 2010–May 2011. The YC 

seasonal cycle from Rosset and Beal (2011) is indicated (red line).
87

Figure 65. Seasonal cycle of transport anomalies through the YC calculated between September

1999–May 2001 and May 2010–May 2011. Seasonal cycles were calculated separately for total 

YC transport (black line) and through the east (green line) and west (blue line) of 85.6oW.
88

Chang and Oey (2013) relate the Trade wind intensification to their model semi-annual 

transport signal, which in turn, they suggest, reflects on the LC dynamics and eddy shedding 

period. Summarizing: total transport estimates presented here show weak annual and possible 

semi-annual cycles different from those of Rousset and Beal (2011) and Chang and Oey 

(2013). Transport anomalies separated in western and eastern contributions indicate large 

compensations with WYC anomalies depicting a strong positive peak in March–April and 

weaker relative maxima in January and July. Positive (negative) WYC transport anomalies 

generally coincide with negative (positive) wind stress curl anomalies over the Cayman Sea 

(Figure 69). It is interesting that the long-term (40-year, not shown) seasonal cycle of the 

wind stress and wind stress curl does have its stronger negative signal in summer; however, 

the seasonal cycle of the periods 1999–2001 and 2008–2010 have a more intense westward 

wind and anticyclonic 



during winter-spring rather than summer, suggesting the 

importance of inter-annual variability. 

Figure 66. Seasonal cycle of transport through the WYC (west of 85.6oW); calculated between 

September 1999–May 2001 and May 2010–May 2011 (blue line) and between April 2008–May 

2011 (magenta line).
89

Jul10 Oct10 Jan11 Apr11

−10

−5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Western (24.5 Sv) Yucatan Channel Transport (2010−2011)

Easter (2.6 Sv)

Figure 67. Time-evolution of the YC transport calculated for the western (black line) and eastern 

(red line) YC between May 2010 and May 2011.

The connection between wind and WYC transport is perhaps clearer and easier to understand 

looking at the wind stress curl rather than the wind-stress. Between September and December, 

anomalies of 



and 

X



are positive over both the Cayman Sea and GoM basins and coincide 

with a decrease in WYC transport. The origin of the drop to zero in transport anomaly in October 

is not clear, but coincides with a simultaneous or previous (one month) drop in the positive

anomalies of the wind-stress curl over the GoM (see Figure 69 and Figure 70).

To investigate if the anti-correlation between transport and wind-stress curl anomalies remains 

during different periods, monthly series of 



in the Cayman Sea and GoM, as well as WYC 

transport were calculated independently for the two periods of Canek measurements (September

1999–May 2001 and April 2008–December 2010 (Figure 70). Most important differences 

between both periods are: i) the winter intensification of easterlies occurs one month later 

(February) in 1999–2001 than in 2008–2010 (January), the stronger anomaly in WYC transport 

occurs in March for the 2008–2010 period, and one month later (April) in 1999–2001, with 

apparently a two-month lag between wind and transport maxima. ii) In 1999–2001, the summer 

anticyclonic 



lasted for three months (June, July, August), whereas in 2008–2010 only 

lasted one month (July). A similar (delayed) response was observed in WYC transport, which 

increased one month later during July, August, September, October in 1999-2001 but only 

increased in August during 2008–2010). In 2008–2010 the seasonal cycle in the 

(Ñ ́t )

is 
90

strongly annual with anticyclonic behavior between January and July and cyclonic behavior the 

rest of the year. It is not always possible to establish a one month lag between wind-stress curl 

anomalies over the Cayman basin and WYC transport anomalies, although on average, such a 

delay appears to remain (see below). Our analysis suggests there is a connection between 

transport and winds, but the physics of it remains uncertain. One must also remember that being 

an integral part of the subtropical gyre, the YCu can respond to both local and remote forcing at 

these time-scales.

Figure 71 shows the temporal evolution of monthly-averaged WYC transport and wind-stress 

curl for the Caribbean and the GoM. Figure 72 is a similar plot but for the zonal stress 

X



. Both 

figures now separate all measurement periods individually, with the purpose to corroborate if 

every year the inverse behavior between WYC transport and 

(Ñ ́t ), as well as

X



remains valid. 

In general, one can say there is indeed an opposite relation in the curl-transport series but there 

are also occasions when such relation is not valid. Even if there is inter-annual variability in the 

timing and strength of the wind-stress curl anomalies, the anti-correlation between WYC 

transports and Cayman wind-stress curl anomalies remains. The semi-annual signal in 

Ñ ́t

generally present with anticyclonic anomalies in January–February and July–August varies

however, since the highest anomaly is not always in summer. For example, during 2001 and 

2010 negative anomalies of 

Ñ ́t

occur in winter which are, at least, as intense as the anomalies 

of summer (2008). In a similar way, there are years (2000 and 2009) where the anomalies of 

WYC transport do not seem to be inversely correlated with 



over the Cayman Sea. Crosscorrelation was performed between the spatial mean of 



or 

  

and WYC transport 

and between the spatial mean of 

t X

and the WYC transport, for each Canek measurement period 

individually (Figure 73). The 



precedes transport with a mean lag of 28 days (varying 

between 6 and 65 days) and 

t X

precedes transport with a lag of 24 days (varying between 7 and 

39 days). The time-lag of one month between wind and transport is consistent with time 

difference observed in the seasonal cycles between the negative peak in wind variables ( and 

t X

) and the positive peak in transport during late winter and summer.
91

Figure 68. Map of the Caribbean Sea–Gulf the Mexico system, showing the areas where 

X

 , t Y

and



were estimated from the ERA-interim data. The Cayman Sea (blue square) is the same 

region chosen by Chang and Oey (2012, 2013). 
92

Figure 69. Seasonal cycle of the WYC transport (black line) compared with the zonal wind stress 

curl (upper panel) and the wind stress (lower panel) for the Cayman Sea (blue line) and the Gulf 

of Mexico (green line, areas are indicated in Figure 68) between September 1999–May 2001 and 

April 2008–December 2010. All the series are 40-days low-pass filtered and showed in 

standarized anomalies.
93

Figure 70. Seasonal cycle of the WYC transport (black line) compared with the zonal winds tress 

curl for the Cayman Sea (blue line) and the Gulf of Mexico (green line, areas are indicated in 

Figure 68) separated by periods: September 1999–May 2001 (upper panel) and April 2008–

December 2010 (lower panel). All the series are 40-days low-pass filtered and showed in 

standarized anomalies.
94

Figure 71. Monthly averaged time series of the WYC transport (black line) compared with the 

winds stress curl for the Cayman Sea (upper panels) and the Gulf of Mexico (bottom panels), 

areas are indicated in Figure 68 for the two periods of Canek measurements. All the series are 

40-days low-pass filtered and showed in standarized anomalies.
95

Figure 72. Monthly averaged time series of the WYC transport (black line) compared with the 

zonal winds stress for the Cayman Sea (upper panels) and the Gulf of Mexico (bottom panels, 

areas are indicated in Figure 68) for the two periods of Canek measurements. All the series are 

40-days low-pass filtered and showed in standarized anomalies.
96

Figure 73. Cross-correlation between wind stress curl and WYC transport (rcy upper panel) and 

between zonal wind stress and WYC transport (rxy, bottom panel) calculated separately for each 

Canek campaign. The maxima correlation time-lag (negative) is indicated by the red dot. 

Some observations and model studies indicate that the LC dynamics, particularly the LC 

northern extension and LCE release rate, are related to transport fluctuations in the YC (e.g.,

Hurlburt and Thompson, 1980; Oey et al., 2003; Candela et al., 2002; Chang and Oey, 2013). 

These studies however provide different–even contradicting–views of the relation between LC 

dynamics and eddy shedding with other dynamical variables such as vorticity, LC strength and 

extension, to mention a few. Specifically, Chang and Oey, 2013 suggest that an increased 

velocity of the YCu leads to higher YC transport and LC extension and a very strong positive 

correlation between vorticity anomalies and LC northward extension. To investigate how these 

relations appear in the mooring data, vorticity through the YC was estimated in a “Lagrangian” 

way from the difference between the maximum velocity of the YCu (regardless of its zonal 

position) and the velocity at the fixed point located at 86.45W, divided by their distance (which 

varies in time). Figure 74 (left panel) is a longitude-time plot of the along-channel velocity at the

YC showing the maximum velocity position (black line) and the 86.4°W longitude position used 

for the vorticity computation (yellow line). The position of the YCu core is not directly 
97

correlated with its value, i.e., a western shift of the current core does not necessarily imply an 

increase in velocity (Figure 74 right panel). 

Figure 74. Longitude-time diagram of the along-channel velocity through YC (left panel); the 

maximum value of the YCu is indicated by the black line and the yellow line indicates the 86.4W 

fixed longitude. Time series of the maximum value of velocity from YCu anomalies (black line) 

and of the position in longitude anomalies of this maximum value (red line).
98

Figure 75 shows the seasonal cycle (monthly means) of LC northern extension, YCu vorticity (as 

defined above) and WYC transport for the Canek observation period 2008–2011; the LC 

northern extension was determined using AVISO data and the metric developed by Leben 

(2005), consisting on tracking the 50-cm contour of SSH, which is used as an approximation for 

the high velocity core of the LC. Transport and LC extension series depict positive anomalies 

from February to June and negative afterwards. Vorticity has a similar tendency but has more 

variability. Peaks in March and August in the transport and vorticity series precede LC extension 

peaks occurring one month later (April and September). Figure 76 shows times series of WYC

transport, vorticity and LC extension. There is significant correlation between vorticity and 

transport (upper panel) of YCu between March 2009 and March 2011, but this is not true for 

May 2008 to May 2009, where the correlation is 0.3. The relation between these two variables 

and the LC extension is not so obvious (middle and bottom panels) since large LC extension 

happen both with positive and negative transport and vorticity anomalies. Nevertheless, there are 

periods when LC extension increments coincide with positive vorticity and more clearly 

transport also increase (e.g., March–July 2009, November–May 2010, and September 2010–

March 2011). Consistently with the transport–vorticity relation, before March 2009, LC 

extension does not seem to have any relation with vorticity nor transport of the YCu. To better 

appreciate the fluxes of vorticity, its time-integral was compared with the LC extension (Figure 

77), confirming that the connection between variability of YCu is not always strong throughout 

time. The regression of monthly averages for the LC with WYC transport anomalies (Figure 78) 

shows a slight relation between lower (higher) LC latitudinal extension and negative (positive) 

transport anomalies (r=0.4). Colors in Figure 78 represent the different years of measurements; 

the correlation appears stronger in 2009 and 2010, even for the regression of LC extension and 

vorticity, which does not show any correlation considering the whole period. The correlation 

between LC extension and transport anomalies increases to 0.6 when the whole seasonal cycle is 

considered (calculated between 2008 and 2011, (Figure 79), suggesting that these two variables

are better correlated on seasonal scales. However, the analysis indicates that the connection 

between YCu and LC dynamics is complex even at seasonal scales and inter-annual variability 

plays an important role that needs further investigation.
99

Figure 75. Seasonal cycle of the WYC (black line), vorticity of the YCu (green line), and the LC 

northern extension in latitude (blue line); values are indicated in standardized anomalies 

calculated between March 2008 and May 2011.
100

Figure 76. Vorticity of the YCu (green line) compared with the WYC transport (black line, upper 

panel) and with the LC northern extension (blue line, middle panel); WYC transport and the LC

extension are also compared (bottom panel).
101

Figure 77. Detrended time integral of vorticity of the YCu (green line) and the LC northern 

extension (blue line). 

Figure 78. Regression performed year by year using available Canek data between the LC 

northern extension and WYC transport anomalies (upper panel) and between the LC northern 

boundary and vorticity anomalies (bottom panel; note that vorticity is divided by Coriolis 

parameter f).
102

Figure 79. Regression of the seasonal cycle calculated from March 2008 to April 2011 between 

the LC northern extension and WYC transport anomalies (left panel) and between the LC 

northern extension and vorticity of the YCu anomalies (right panel, vorticity divided by f).
103

5. ON THE LOOP CURRENT EDDY RELEASES

 

The LC wraps around over itself and sheds large warm, anticyclonic eddies that extend

several hundred meters in depth and propagate in a west-southwest direction across the GoM 

(see the monograph edited by Sturges and Lugo-Fernandez, 2005, for a comprehensive review).

This is a slow and complex process that often involves several detachments-reattachments of the 

anticyclonic eddy within the same shedding event. Understanding of this complex dynamics is 

one of the main purposes of the observations and modeling carried out in this project. 

Eddies are conveniently detected from satellite altimetry data, for which we use the maps of 

absolute dynamic topography (MADT) and geostrophic velocities derived from it using a 

multiplatform product that includes data from the Topex-Poseidon, Jason-1, and GFO satellites,

as offered by AVISO (the altimeter products are produced by Ssalto/Duacs and distributed by 

AVISO, with support from CNES). This information has a 1/3 of a degree spatial resolution, and 

seven days temporal resolution. From these data, we determined that four LCE were released 

during the time our instruments were deployed and serve to illustrate the behavior of currents 

and eddies as they separate from the LC. The moorings installed at the YC and PE section then 

serve to document the behavior of the YCu as well as at the western edge of the LC from the 

surface to the bottom. The current pulsations as well as the zonal migration of the YCu in the YC

can be clearly identified in AVISO data. For a thorough comparison and validation of AVISO 

data using mooring observations near the coast, see Athie et al. (2012). The criterion used to 

identify each detachment, including the pinching point, is the same as that used in section 4.20, 

described by Leben (2005). For the purpose of this section, we will consider only the total LCE 

release, which means the last and final detachment of each LCE before moving into the GoM. 

The four LCE releases that will be analyzed are: LCE1 on July 2, 2008; LCE2 on February 18, 

2009; LCE3 on August 5, 2009 and LCE4 on August 11, 2010. Figure 46 shows that the four 

eddies were detached farther north from the location of the section PE (north of 24oN). The 

release process for each LCE is illustrated in Figure 81. In all cases, the LCE detachment is 

preceded by a low sea surface height upstream at the northwestern Caribbean, suggesting a 

cyclonic eddy, followed by the eastward shift of the YCu; shortly after, inside the GoM the 

cyclone located west of the LC increases in intensity (at LCE1, LCE3 and LCE4), leading to an

LCE, final, release. This mechanism that suggests the northward propagation of cyclonic 

anomalies along the Caribbean coast of Mexico into the gulf has been described for sixteen of 

twenty-one detachments (partial and total releases) observed between January 2005 and July 

2009 by Athie et al. (2012). In this chapter mooring data will be analyzed after this date to study 

this mechanism in subsequent eddies. 

Geostrophic velocities from AVISO were interpolated to WYC (Figure 82) and to the position of 

section PE (see Figure 83 for Canek data and Figure 84 for AVISO data). The YCu core is 

clearly observed with the Canek data (Figure 82), as a higher along-channel velocity. Although, 

AVISO velocities show lower magnitude throughout the study period, usually, the current core 

in the satellite and mooring data is equally located west of 85.8°W and intensity variations also 
104

coincide in time; however, at the western side of the channel, the return flow is not well 

represented by AVISO data. The horizontal movements of the current core are also in good 

agreement in both datasets, remarking how the current axis is gradually moving to the east before 

each of the three releases (LCE1, LCE3, LCE4 and, to a lesser extent, for LCE2). This is most 

noticeable with satellite data, due to the high variability detected by mooring measurements; 

however, the time evolution of the longitude-averaged current confirms also an increase (~0.2 

m/s) of the velocity before each LCE detachment of equal magnitude in both datasets. The 

eastward shift of current before a release is also observed further north, at PE section, in the 

along-section velocity from both, Canek (Figure 83) and satellite (Figure 84) datasets; moreover, 

a strong pulse of negative cross-section velocity preceding the releases is also observed. Note 

that in the PE section analysis, only LCE2, LCE3 and LCE4 are considered in satellite data and 

only LCE3 and LCE4 in mooring data, because of the length of the time series at this position.

Figure 80. Averaged sea surface height (contours) and horizontal distribution of the detachments 

(crosses) occurred between July 2008 and August 2010. The 45 cm mean contour of sea surface 

height (black line) and the mooring positions (white dots) are indicated.
105

Figure 81. Snapshots of absolute sea surface height from AVISO showing the evolution of the 

four detachments documented: July 2, 2008 (top panels); February 18, 2009 (middle top panels); 

August 5, 2009 (middle bottom panels); August 11, 2010 (bottom panels). Detachment dates are 

determinate by the date that the 45 cm contour separated from the LC.
106

Figure 82. Longitude-time plot of the along-channel velocity for the WYC for Canek data (left 

panel) and geostrophic velocities from AVISO (middle panel). Along-channel velocity was 

averaged in longitude (right panel) for Canek data (black line) and AVISO data (blue line). Black 

lines indicate the dates of the LCE detachments.

In order to evaluate the horizontal current shear of the YCu during the LCE release events, the 

difference between the velocity at the current core (maximum velocity) and velocity at 86.4°W 

(the western edge YCu) was calculated (Figure 85), as an indicator of possible vorticity fluxes. 

There is a clear increase of the current shear (>.3 m/s for Canek and >0.05 m/s for AVISO), 

during three of the four release events (PE1, PE3 and PE4); this is confirmed by the time-integral 

of the current shear (lower panel of Figure 85), in which the four releases take place during or 

after a period of positive horizontal shear. During the release of LCE2, the current shifts to the 

east (Figure 81) without any clear increase of the positive horizontal shear, this may be due to a 

small increase in the current intensity (Figure 84); unfortunately, there is no mooring data 

available at this time at PE section.
107

Figure 83. Longitude-time plot of the Canek data velocity components: parallel to section PE 

(left panel) and perpendicular to section PE (middle panel). Eddy kinetic energy is shown in the 

right panel. Black lines indicate the dates of the LCE3 and LCE4 detachments occurred between 

July 2009 and April 2011.
108

The sea surface height (SSH) anomalies were interpolated along the Western Caribbean, 

passing through the YC into the central and eastern part of the GoM, to visualize the time 

evolution of the variability from the YCu to the western side of LC (along the line in Figure 86). 

Based on the SSH anomalies diagram (Figure 86), a succession of positive-negative anomalies 

propagate from the northwestern Caribbean into the YC. Between January 2009 and January 

2011, three of these anomalies propagate through YC into the GoM (~22°N). It is noteworthy 

that the three LCE detachments match the three arrival of corresponding negative SSH anomalies 

at the PE section. Current shear between along-section velocities of moorings PE5 and PE2 was 

calculated at 50 m depth (Figure 85, upper panel). Three of the four LCE releases observed 

during this time period (LCE1, LCE3, and LCE4), occurred after the increase of current 

horizontal shear (positive vorticity). The detrended time integral of the horizontal shear confirms 

that LCE1 and LCE4 releases occurred just after the positive shear of current turns negative, and 

LCE3 during a period of positive vorticity. 

Figure 84. Longitude-time plot of the geostrophic velocity components deduced from AVISO 

sea surface height: parallel to section PE (left panel) perpendicular to section PE (middle panel). 

Eddy kinetic energy is shown in the right panel. Black lines indicate the dates of the LCE2, 

LCE3, and LCE4 detachments occurred between April 2009 and December 2010.
109

The connection between the eastern shifts of the YCu core and the eddy shedding events by 

the LC, have already been recognized in a numerical model (Ezer et al., 2003); after that, it was 

demonstrated from 3-years of mooring and satellite observations, between 2006 and 2009 (Athie 

et al., 2012), that release periods are associated with an eastward shift of the current core and 

cumulative positive horizontal shear for both, the YCu and the LC. In this chapter the same 

connection was demonstrated for the subsequent period between 2009 and 2011.

Figure 85. Horizontal shear at the WYC from mooring data (top panel) and AVISO geostrophic 

velocities (middle panel). Horizontal shear was calculated from the anomalies of the difference 

between the highest velocity of the YCu and the velocity at 86.4°W. Detrended time integrals of 

horizontal shear velocities were estimated (bottom panel).
110

Figure 86. Time-latitude diagram of the sea surface height anomalies interpolated along the black

trace of the map at the top. Anomalies of the horizontal shear velocity along the PE section 

calculated between moorings PE5 and PE2 (middle panel). Detrended time integral of the 

horizontal shear velocity at PE station (bottom panel). Time span only covers LCE2, LCE3, and 

LCE4.
111

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The mooring array installed at the WYC (west of 85.6oW) between March 2008 and May 

2011 revealed a high degree of consistency in the yearly-averaged current structure over time, 

compared with the first detailed current measurements at YC between August 1999 and June 

2001 (Sheinbaum et al., 2002). Additionally, two more sections installed along the shelf break 

from 150 m to over 3000m depth provided valuable information downstream in the western edge 

of LC (PE section) and northeast of the Campeche Bank (PN section). In the WYC, current 

structure is characterized by the intense flow of YCu with mean velocities around 1 m/s in its 

core, whose position varied between moorings YUC4, YUC5, and YUC6 although unfrequently 

up to YUC7, with mean current dominating over the variability. Current decreases considerably 

from the surface to 1000 m depth, where mean speeds are below 0.1 m/s with variations of the 

same order. Further north, the position of the current core varies between moorings PE2 and 

PE4, and between PN2 and PN3, but here the mean current velocity near the surface is lower 

than through the YC (0.75 m/s). The variability at PE is of the same order than the mean current, 

and at section PN variability exceeds the magnitude of the mean currents. 

Empirical Orthogonal Function analysis of the velocity anomalies carried out at each mooring of 

the YC, PE, and PN sections showed that the first two modes explained nearly 90% of the 

variability (see Section 3.2). The first mode, that represents between 62% and 86% of the 

variance, shows that the mean orientation of currents are along the YC, and along the topography 

for the northern sections over the shelf. The second mode explains 7–25% of the variability with 

a structure basically across the YC and perpendicular to the topography at PE and PN. The 

principal component of this second mode shows intense pulses propagating from the shelf to the 

deep slope (Figure 41), without any apparent seasonally.

The vertical structure in almost all moorings has the highest velocity current near the surface 

and decreasing with depth, until 1000m depth, where the minimum of velocity is observed; this 

zone is also characterized by a minimum of the ratio of sub-inertial velocity variance to total 

variance, which diminishes below 40% at this depth. For the deepest moorings (YUC7, PE5, and 

PN4), this value increases again over 70% and is also associated with a slight increase of current 

velocity at depth. The increase near the bottom at the YC (YUC7) are due mostly, to deeper 

flows entering and exiting the GoM near the bottom, which have been proved related with the 

LC dynamics (Maul et al., 1985; Bunge et al., 2002). On the other hand, the southward, bottomintensified, along-slope flows observed in deep moorings of sections PE and PN, suggest the 

presence of strong topographic Rossby waves seen in other areas of the GoM along the slope 

(e.g., Hamilton, 2007, Oey and Lee, 2002, Kolodziejczyk et al. 2012). 

The ellipses of variability together with vector time series and the individual mooring EOF 

decomposition, show that the current meanders (zonal variations of the current core position) are 

of greater magnitude in PE and PN stations than in the YC with a seasonal trend: current core 

was observed offshore, i.e. shifts eastward in summer, between June and September and 

westward, toward the shelf, in winter–spring (between November to April). Moreover, three of 
112

the four LCE releases observed between July 2008 and June 2011 occurred in summer. However,

the shifts of the current core or current meanders are a common feature observed in the YCu and 

the LC. An important result is that current meanders are related to the LCE releases. These new 

measurements prove that four LCE releases observed between 2008 and 2011 were preceded by 

an intense pulse in along-channel velocity at the WYC, as well as by an EKE pulse in the LC (PE 

section). Furthermore, LCEs’ releases are simultaneous with the eastward shift of the YCu, 

together with periods of positive horizontal shear (cyclonic vorticity) along the YC and PE 

section. This relation is very clear in three of the four LCE releases (July 2008, August 2009, and 

August 2010). Additionally, this seasonality represents a significant proportion of the variability; 

it is captured in the first EOF mode of variability. At PE section the first EOF represents 61% of 

the variance (Figure 87) and the spatial mode presents negative (positive) anomalies of the flow 

near the shelf between June–November (December–May), which are in good agreement with the 

horizontal shear of the LC at PE (also indicated in the figure). 

The altimetry, and eddies detected by it, provide a clear framework to interpret the mooring 

observations and allows to explain the connection between observed currents at different 

locations. MADT allowed to have a clear vision of the process involved; in the four LCE 

releases, the meander of the current or the eastward shift of the YCu was observed just before the 

arrival of a cyclone to the northwestern Caribbean and just before the LCE detachment; Figure 

86 confirms the propagation of SSH anomalies along the Yucatan shelf from the Caribbean into 

the GoM, with negative anomalies just before each LCE release. These findings were already 

discussed by Athie et al. (2012), considering an earlier period of observations (between January, 

2005 and July, 2008); however, there are other processes that could contribute to the increase of 

cyclonic vorticity through the YCu. Huang et al. (2013) using a numerical model, show that the 

passage of anticyclonic eddies from the Caribbean into the GoM, not in the western side but in 

the central YC, is also related to EKE pulses and a shift of the YCu, which in turn contribute to 

the LCFE increase inside the GoM. However, a clear connection between the passages of 

anticyclonic eddies through the YC and the LCEs releases could not be established. 

Regarding seasonality, one important result is the remarkable compensation between 

variability at western and eastern sides of the YC (west and east from 85.6°W). Transport 

anomalies at both sides of the channel are of the same order of amplitude (4–5 Sv) and show a 

compensating behavior (negative correlation around 0.7 to 0.8); consequently, significant 

changes in the total transport variability with respect to the transport only at the western side of 

the channel (YCu transport) are observed, even if the mean transport in the WYC represents 

about the 90% of the total mean transport. Then, variability of the total transport cannot be 

accounted with only the western side, as it is modified, not only in the high frequency but also in 

its seasonal cycle, by the contribution of the eastern side. The time evolution of the monthlyaveraged transport between May 2010 and May 2011 for total and WYC (Figure 88) shows two 

maxima of equal magnitude in August and January, but considering only the WYC the maximum 

in winter increases over the summer. It is important to mention that using a longer time-series,

the total YC transport appears to have a stronger annual cycle, whilst the YCu transport shows a 

hint of a semi-annual signal with asymmetric maxima in summer and winter–spring (with higher 

transport in winter–spring) for the period analyzed (not shown here).
113

Figure 87. Fist EOF mode of variability for the section PE, which represents the western side of 

the LC. Temporal evolution or principal component of the mode (lower panel, black line) with 

anomalies of the horizontal shear velocity along PE section calculated between moorings PE5 

and PE2 (cyan line). LCE releases dates are indicated (vertical black lines).
114

Figure 88. Time-evolution of YC transport anomalies considering the whole YC (black line) and 

the WYC (blue line), for the first period (1999–2001, left panels) and the second period (2010–

2011, right panels) of Canek measurements. 
115

Figure 89. Monthly averaged time series of the total (black line) and western (blue line) YC

transport between May 2010 and April 2011.

The suggestion of an asymmetric semi-annual cycle in the YC transport deduced from 20

years of numerical model simulations (Chang and Oey, 2012, 2013) is not clearly observed in all 

the Canek data. The period 2010-2011 does indicate such a cycle (Figure 89) and only a hint of 

it appears considering the western side of YC, but this is not always the case. The comparison 

between the two periods of Canek measurements (1999–2001 and 2008–2010) partially 

confirmed a Cayman wind-stress curl - WYC transport connection, with a time-lag of 1 month, 

as suggested by Chang and Oey (2012) but again, such a relation is not always present. Monthlyaveraged series of 



and WYC transport, revealed the global maxima of both series in winter 

rather than summer during the analysis periods, but time-series of both variables also show 

periods of non-connection. This suggests interannual variability modulates the plausible seasonal 

relation between winds over the Cayman Sea and YC transport, but remote forcing must play 

also a role since transport variations are not always in agreement with local (Cayman Sea) 

forcing variations.

Between May 2010 and May 2011 the whole YC was measured, yielding a total transport of 

27 Sv, which is 4 Sv higher than between 1999 and 2001 (23 Sv) Between 2008–2011, 

considering only the western side of the channel, the yearly-means transports were rather 
116

constant (~24 Sv). This western transport alone is 2 Sv higher than in 1999–2001. For the 

western transport alone, the standard deviation estimated during the five available years is 3.5 

Sv. This suggests a significant interannual variability of currents through this channel. One 

important result is the importance of the western-eastern YC dynamics and the connection 

between the YCu and LC dynamics, which is complex and changes over time, varying its 

dynamics in seasonal, but also at interannual time-scales.

Topography determines also the basic characteristics of the flow. Throughout the slope of the 

Yucatan Peninsula, variability is oriented along the topography (from YUC2 to YUC5, from PE1 

to PE3 and from PN1 to PN4) with some reversals of the current. Vectors time series shows 

southward current episodes near the surface during July–September 2009 and April–October

2010, corresponding to the offshore shift of the current core. Over the slope, particularly at PN 

section, high-frequency variability is observed, particularly in winter, between January and May 

2010.
117

7. REFERENCES

Abascal, A. J., J. Sheinbaum, J. Candela, J. Ochoa, and A. Badan. 2003. Analysis of flow 

variability in the Yucatan Channel, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (C12), 3381, doi: 

10.1029/2003JC001922.

Athie G., J. Candela, J. Ochoa and J. Sheinbaum. 2012. Impact of Caribbean cyclones on the 

detachment of Loop Current anticyclones, J. Geophys. Res., 117, C03018, doi: 

10.1029/2011JC007090.

Atkinson, L. P., T. Berger, P. Hamilton, E. Waddell, K. Leaman and T. N. Lee. 1995. Current 

meter observations in the Old Bahama Channel, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 8555–8560.

Baringer, M. O., and J. C. Larsen. 2001. Sixteen years of Florida Current transport at 27°N,

Geophys. Res. Lett., 28: 3179–3182.

Bunge, L., J. Ochoa, A. Badan, J. Candela and J. Sheinbaum. 2002. Deep flows in the Yucatan 

Channel and their relation to changes in the Loop Current extension, J. Geophys. Res., 

107(C12), 3233, doi: 10.1029/2001JC001256.

Candela, J., J. Sheinbaum, J. Ochoa, and A. Badan. 2002. Potential vorticity flux through the 

Yucatán Channel and the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 

2059, doi:10.1029/2002GL015587.

Candela, J., S. Tanahara, M. Crepon, B. Barnier and J. Sheinbaum. 2003. Yucatan Channel flow: 

Observations versus CLIPPER ATL6 and MERCATOR PAM models, J. Geophys. Res., 

108(C12), 3385, doi: 10.1029/2003JC001961.

Chang Y. L. and L. Y. Oey. 2010. Why can wind delay the shedding of Loop Current eddies?, J. 

Phys. Oceanogr., 40(11), doi: 10.1175/ 2010JPO4460.1. 

Chang, Y.-L. and L.-Y, Oey. 2012. Why does the Loop Current tend to shed more eddies in 

summer and winter?, J. Geophys. Res., 39, L05605, doi: 10.1029/2011GL050773.

Chang, Yu-Lin, L.-Y. Oey. 2013. Loop Current Growth and Eddy Shedding Using Models and 

Observations: Numerical Process Experiments and Satellite Altimetry Data. J. Phys. 

Oceanogr., 43, doi: 10.1175/JPO-D-12-0139.1

Chelton, D.B. 1983. Effects of sampling errors in statistical estimation. Deep-Sea Res., 30, 1083-

1101.
118

Chérubin, L. M., Y. Morel and E. P. Chassignet. 2006. Loop Current ring shedding: The 

Formation of Cyclones and the Effect of Topography, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 36(4): 569-

591.

Cochrane, J. D. 1969. Currents and waters of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and western Caribbean, 

of the western tropical Atlantic, and of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Tech. Rep., 

pp.29-31, Texas A& M Univ., Ref. 69-9T.

Cochrane, J. D. 1972. Separation of an anticyclone and subsequent developments in the Loop 

Current (1969), in Contributions on the Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico, 

Edited by L. R. A. Capurro and J. L. Reid, pp. 91-106, Texas A & M University 

Oceanographic Studies, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston.

Ezer, T., L.-Y. Oey, H.-C. Lee and W. Sturges. 2003. The Variability of Currents in the Yucatan 

Strait: Analysis of Results from a Numerical Ocean Model, J. Geophy. Res., 108(C1), 

3012, doi: 10.1029/2002JC001509.

Fratantoni, P. S., T. N. Lee, G. P. Podesta and F. Muller-Karger. 1998. The influence of Loop 

Current perturbations on the formation and evolution of Tortugas eddies in the southern 

Strait of Florida, J. Geophys. Res., 103 (C11), 24,759-24,799.

Gordon, A. L. 1967. Circulation of the Caribbean Sea. J. Geophys. Res., 72, 6207-6223.

Hamilton, P. 1990. Deep currents in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 20: 1087-1104.

Hamilton, P. 2007. Deep-current variability near the Sigsbee Escarpment in the Gulf of Mexico. 

J. Phys. Oceanogr. 37: 708-726.

Hurlburt, H. E. and J. D. Thompson. 1980. A numerical study of Loop Current intrusions and 

eddy shedding, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 10: 1611– 1651. 

Hurlburt, H. E. 1986. Dynamic transfer of simulated altimeter data into subsurface information 

by a numerical ocean model, J. Geophys. Res., 91 (C2), 2372-2400.

Johns, W.E., T.L. Townsend, D.M. Fratantoni and W.D. Wilson. 2002. On the Atlantic inflow to 

the Caribbean Sea, Deep Sea res., 49, 211-243.
119

Kolodziejczyk, N., J. Ochoa, J. Candela and J. Sheinbaum. 2012. Observations of intermittent 

deep currents and eddies in the Gulf of Mexico, J. Geophys. Res., 117 (C9), doi: 

10.1029/2012JC007890.

Larsen, J. 1992. Transport and heat flux of the Florida Current at 27N derived from cross-stream 

voltages and profiling data: theory and observations. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 

A338, 169-236.

Leaman, P. S. Vertes, L. P. Atkinson, and T. N. Lee. 1995. Transport, potential vorticity, and 

current/ temperature structure across Northwest Providence and Santaren Channels and 

the Florida Current off Cay Sal Bank, J. Geophys. Res., 100: 8561–8569.

Leben, R. R. 2005. Satellite observations of Gulf of Mexico mesoscale circulation and 

variability, in Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: Observations and Models, Vol. 161, 

edited by W. Sturges and A. Lugo-Fernandez pp. 181-201, Geophys. Monograph Ser., 

AGU, Washington.

Le Hennaf, M., V.H. Kourafalou, Y. Morel and A. Srinivasan. 2012. Simulating the dynamics 

and intensification of cyclonic Loop Current Frontal Eddies in the Gulf of Mexico, J. 

Geophys. Res., C2, doi: 10.1029/2011JC007279.

Maul, G. A., D. A. Mayer and S. R. Baig. 1985. Comparisons between a continuous 3-year 

current-meter observation at the sill of the Yucatan Strait, satellite measurements of Gulf 

Loop Current area, and regional sea level, J. Geophys. Res., 90: 9089– 9096.

Molinari, R. L., J. F. Festa and D. W. Behringer. 1978. The circulation in the Gulf of Mexico 

derived from estimated dynamic height fields. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 8, 987/996.

Ochoa, J., A. Badan, J. Sheinbaum and J. Candela. 2003. Canek: Measuring transports in the 

Yucatan Channel. In: Nonlinear Processes in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics: A tribute to 

the scientific work of Pedro Ripa (O.U. Velasco, J. Sheinbaum and J. Ochoa, Eds.), 

Kluwer, 275-286.

Oey, L-Y. 1996. Simulation of mesoscale variability in the Gulf of Mexico: Sensitivity studies, 

comparison with observations, and trapped wave propagation, Journal of Phys. Oceanog., 

26(2): 145-175.

Oey, L.-Y., H.-C. Lee and W. J. Schmitz Jr. 2003. Effects of Winds and Caribbean Eddies on the 

Frequency of Loop Current Eddy Shedding: A Numerical Model Study, J. Geophy. Res., 

108(C10), doi: 10.1029/2002JC001698.
120

Oey, L.-Y., T. Ezer, and H.-C. Lee. 2005. Loop Current, rings and related circulation in the Gulf 

of Mexico: A review of numerical models and future challenges, in Circulation in the 

Gulf of Mexico: Observations and Models, Vol. 161, edited by W. Sturges and A. LugoFernandez pp. 31-56, Geophys. Monograph Ser., AGU, Washington.

Oey, L.-Y., T. Ezer, D.-P. Wang, X.-Q. Yin and S.-J. Fan, 2007. Hurricane-induced motions and 

interaction with ocean currents. Cont. Shelf Res., 27, 1249-1263, doi:

10.1016/j.csr.2007.01.008.

Pichevin, T. and D. Nof. 1997. The momentum imbalance paradox. Tellus A, 49, 298-319, doi: 

10.1034/j.1600-0870.1997.t01-1-00009.x.

Rivas, D., A. Badan, and J. Ochoa. 2005. The ventilation of the deep Gulf of Mexico. J. Phys. 

Oceanogr., 35: 1763-1781.

Roemmich D. 1981. Circulation of the Caribbean Sea: A well-resolved inverse problem, J. 

Geophys. Res., 86, 7993-8005.

Rousset, C., L. M. Beal. 2010. Observations of the Florida and Yucatan Currents from a 

Caribbean Cruise Ship, J. Phys. Ocean., 40, doi: 10.1175/2010JPO4447.1.

Rousset, C. and L.M. Beal. 2011. On the seasonal variability of the currents in the Strait of 

Florida and Yucatan Channel, J. Geophys. Res., 116, C08004, 

doi:10.1029/2010JC006679.

Schmitz, W. J. Jr. 2005. Cyclones and westward propagation in the shedding of anticyclonic 

rings from the Loop Current, in Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: Observations and 

Models, Vol. 161, edited by W. Sturges and A. Lugo-Fernandez pp. 241-262, Geophys. 

Monograph Ser., AGU, Washington. 

Sheinbaum, J., J. Candela, A. Badan and J. Ochoa. 2002. Flow structure and transports in the 

Yucatan Channel, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(3), doi: 10.1029/2001GL0139990.

Sturges, W., and J.C. Evans. 1983. On the variability of the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico, 

Journal of Marine Research, 41, 639-653.

Sturges, W. 2005. Deep-water exchange between the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, in 

Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: Observations and Models, Vol. 161, edited by W. 

Sturges and A. Lugo-Fernandez pp. 263-278, Geophys. Monograph Ser., AGU, 

Washington.
121

Sturges, W., N. G. Hoffman and R. R. Leben. 2010. A trigger mechanism for Loop Current ring 

separations, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 40. doi: 10.1175/2009JPO4245.1.

Vukovich, F. M., B. W. Crissman, M. Bushnell and W. J. King. 1979. Some aspects of the Gulf 

of Mexico using satellite and in-situ Data, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 7749–7768.

Vukovich, F. M. 1988. Loop Current Boundary Variations, J. Geophys. Res., 93(C12): 15,585–

15,591.

Zavala-Hidalgo, J., S. L., Morey and J. J. O’Brien. 2003. Cyclonic eddies northeast of the 

Campeche Bank from altimetry data, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 33, 623–629.
122

APPENDIX A. TABLES OF BASIC STATISTICS
123

APPENDIX A. TABLES OF BASIC STATISTICS

Table A- 1. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC2 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

8 4.80 18.32 -92.06 80.50 37.96 45.41 -137.95 253.80 15245 30

12 4.90 17.51 -90.99 65.70 37.05 45.18 -135.37 257.90 15245 30

16 4.43 16.72 -85.40 63.38 36.13 44.30 -133.86 249.10 15245 30

20 3.59 16.06 -82.51 58.50 35.42 43.27 -129.00 230.90 15245 30

24 2.17 15.42 -86.58 55.40 33.98 42.20 -123.44 215.57 15245 30

28 0.31 14.82 -78.84 53.00 31.03 41.06 -120.56 211.35 15245 30

32 -1.39 14.48 -70.69 49.55 26.40 39.39 -114.59 198.96 15245 30

36 -2.70 14.34 -69.49 55.98 20.56 36.89 -110.24 181.17 15245 30

40 -3.34 14.31 -67.59 62.02 14.45 33.70 -108.13 165.78 15245 30

44 -3.25 14.34 -64.21 67.56 8.92 30.15 -99.81 151.19 15245 30

48 -2.44 14.49 -61.06 76.01 4.30 26.49 -90.60 134.54 15245 30

52 -1.11 14.71 -62.12 74.18 0.72 22.63 -84.79 118.18 15245 30

Table A- 2. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC2 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

10 7.33 17.20 -88.60 84.80 46.56 47.40 -82.80 241.30 18612 30

18 5.40 15.54 -89.60 64.70 45.29 47.14 -78.00 233.70 18612 30

26 1.92 14.03 -86.70 66.20 40.99 44.96 -78.00 211.90 18612 30

34 -1.27 13.07 -76.60 54.50 30.23 39.83 -74.90 180.30 18612 30

42 -2.57 12.56 -67.10 51.10 16.42 31.77 -73.90 164.40 18612 30

50 -2.16 12.48 -55.00 49.50 5.69 23.72 -64.00 120.60 18612 30
124

Table A- 3. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC3 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

14 10.44 19.35 -163.10 229.00 76.80 71.74 -129.80 318.40 15257 30

22 9.45 17.62 -84.10 77.30 74.37 69.56 -127.40 262.60 15257 30

30 7.57 16.52 -84.70 76.80 67.20 67.91 -131.90 258.90 15257 30

38 5.27 15.48 -81.30 72.40 55.57 65.54 -136.20 245.60 15257 30

46 3.25 14.43 -75.20 69.10 41.75 61.01 -140.10 237.30 15257 30

54 1.79 13.54 -70.70 65.50 28.07 53.81 -143.20 214.60 15257 30

62 0.44 12.87 -68.40 63.70 16.24 45.15 -138.20 183.20 15257 30

70 -0.80 12.26 -67.40 72.50 7.22 36.62 -119.30 166.60 15257 30

78 -1.89 11.47 -63.00 88.80 0.94 29.60 -95.50 139.80 15257 30

86 -2.53 10.63 -59.40 92.30 -3.06 24.45 -75.20 110.20 15257 30

94 -2.53 9.84 -61.20 89.90 -5.08 20.88 -71.90 91.00 15257 30

102 -1.89 9.23 -47.00 90.00 -5.53 18.43 -72.40 75.30 15257 30

Table A- 4. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC3 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

8 -0.01 30.56 -326.20 376.58 71.36 59.72 -187.80 374.70 18618 30

16 -0.82 33.43 -254.60 440.50 82.93 70.92 -197.20 342.10 18618 30

24 -1.60 30.41 -223.00 290.80 76.36 68.68 -161.90 297.50 18618 30

32 -1.32 26.89 -106.80 189.30 65.34 65.62 -76.10 232.30 18618 30

40 -0.44 23.37 -90.70 86.30 51.20 59.81 -70.40 217.20 18618 30

48 0.03 19.60 -90.30 69.20 36.46 51.62 -62.00 193.90 18618 30

56 -0.34 16.14 -76.70 59.80 23.74 43.21 -57.80 164.10 18618 30

64 -0.99 13.73 -58.80 49.50 14.12 36.20 -59.40 139.90 18618 30

72 -1.50 12.25 -54.40 47.80 7.34 30.91 -60.40 128.80 18618 30

80 -1.52 11.16 -48.90 47.50 2.82 27.08 -63.00 115.80 18618 30

88 -1.08 10.20 -43.10 52.50 0.12 23.76 -63.80 104.40 18618 30

96 -0.50 9.49 -44.60 61.30 -1.29 20.34 -67.20 87.10 18618 30

104 0.06 9.22 -36.20 63.90 -1.87 16.87 -56.70 67.50 18618 30
125

Table A- 5. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC4 Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

53 21.91 21.42 -69.10 119.10 117.00 49.03 -32.40 238.60 15253 30

69 21.87 20.18 -49.40 129.20 111.58 56.61 -49.30 223.10 15253 30

85 18.16 19.00 -35.90 129.80 91.09 57.16 -64.90 199.90 15253 30

101 12.99 17.33 -38.10 132.10 73.60 53.05 -83.20 176.70 15253 30

117 7.03 14.48 -42.30 134.90 61.50 48.77 -84.60 165.90 15253 30

133 3.20 12.24 -53.90 117.50 55.20 46.61 -66.30 154.40 15253 30

149 2.94 11.66 -49.80 110.80 50.79 45.17 -58.00 148.90 15253 30

165 3.85 11.57 -37.60 97.40 45.40 43.61 -67.70 139.90 15253 30

181 4.35 11.04 -34.60 76.60 39.28 41.35 -70.40 131.10 15253 30

197 4.05 10.35 -40.60 55.90 33.10 38.25 -74.70 126.30 15253 30

213 3.51 9.92 -37.20 51.70 27.14 34.66 -73.20 120.90 15253 30

229 3.05 9.35 -40.40 37.40 21.66 30.77 -69.30 111.90 15253 30

245 2.50 8.83 -38.70 39.30 16.61 26.99 -65.80 103.60 15253 30

261 1.59 8.53 -42.50 33.70 12.29 23.73 -60.70 91.30 15253 30

277 0.57 7.88 -28.50 33.70 8.94 21.13 -56.10 77.20 15253 30

293 -0.23 7.18 -30.20 31.10 6.37 19.40 -45.80 66.30 15253 30

309 -0.57 6.73 -29.50 29.40 4.29 18.34 -52.50 61.10 15253 30

325 -0.53 6.47 -29.10 26.60 2.51 17.41 -44.10 59.10 15253 30

341 -0.39 6.22 -29.30 29.80 0.73 16.02 -46.60 50.30 15253 30

357 -0.43 6.00 -28.60 25.40 -0.74 14.36 -49.40 45.50 15253 30

373 -0.69 5.82 -24.20 25.80 -1.95 13.06 -42.50 41.10 15253 30

389 -0.88 5.74 -33.20 26.00 -2.72 12.16 -41.30 40.20 15253 30

405 -0.99 5.65 -30.40 29.50 -3.13 11.46 -44.30 39.50 15253 30

421 -1.11 5.54 -26.40 27.20 -3.22 10.78 -43.70 39.30 15253 30

437 -1.13 5.43 -24.30 24.40 -3.01 9.98 -38.50 40.90 15253 30

453 -1.14 5.24 -25.80 23.10 -2.40 9.00 -36.10 44.40 15253 30

469 -0.96 4.95 -21.40 23.10 -1.65 7.71 -30.20 34.30 15253 30

485 -0.88 4.66 -19.20 24.60 -0.97 6.24 -26.60 36.00 15253 30

501 -0.62 4.30 -19.00 22.30 -0.51 5.01 -24.10 31.00 15253 30
126

Table A- 6. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC5 Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

53 21.76 27.86 -51.10 137.00 109.59 24.79 -2.00 193.10 14878 30

69 22.02 24.80 -46.90 115.50 108.65 23.63 6.00 200.90 14878 30

85 17.74 19.28 -37.40 86.40 98.78 23.74 2.10 185.30 14878 30

101 13.85 15.76 -40.60 72.40 90.51 23.44 -8.00 169.80 14878 30

117 11.85 14.31 -39.00 63.80 83.04 24.20 -24.70 160.50 14878 30

133 10.76 13.52 -33.20 56.30 75.92 25.81 -32.40 144.90 14878 30

149 9.94 12.91 -38.60 59.50 70.30 27.19 -38.80 146.30 14878 30

165 9.31 12.58 -43.20 62.20 66.17 28.00 -41.60 144.10 14878 30

181 8.63 12.45 -44.10 63.40 62.54 28.23 -42.40 133.80 14878 30

197 8.20 12.03 -47.60 60.30 59.06 27.88 -43.80 129.00 14878 30

213 7.94 11.60 -49.90 68.70 55.77 27.39 -47.50 146.40 14878 30

229 7.62 11.11 -49.40 55.50 52.72 26.80 -48.80 120.10 14878 30

245 7.11 10.72 -46.60 57.40 49.78 26.01 -59.40 116.30 14878 30

261 6.51 10.31 -42.00 59.90 47.03 25.08 -62.10 111.90 14878 30

277 6.01 10.09 -37.90 60.80 44.42 24.20 -60.00 110.50 14878 30

293 5.67 10.03 -38.00 53.80 41.85 23.45 -60.30 103.20 14878 30

309 5.39 9.94 -39.00 49.80 39.33 22.58 -56.40 94.20 14878 30

325 5.09 9.86 -43.40 51.90 36.78 21.74 -61.30 93.90 14878 30

341 4.60 9.57 -48.50 50.60 34.23 21.06 -58.90 85.40 14878 30

357 3.94 9.16 -46.40 51.20 31.85 20.65 -62.20 83.90 14878 30

373 3.39 8.84 -43.00 48.20 29.67 20.49 -59.90 81.30 14878 30

389 3.12 8.59 -36.00 41.40 27.76 20.15 -58.20 83.40 14878 30

405 2.81 8.36 -36.20 43.30 25.96 19.79 -59.10 82.00 14878 30

421 2.42 8.30 -37.70 41.10 24.16 19.43 -55.10 84.10 14878 30

437 2.09 8.35 -38.80 39.10 22.27 19.13 -61.70 83.00 14878 30

453 1.83 8.41 -38.00 35.60 20.37 18.94 -67.50 80.70 14878 30

469 1.51 8.23 -34.70 31.90 18.43 18.71 -69.30 79.20 14878 30

485 1.16 7.87 -32.70 35.50 16.50 18.40 -65.20 76.80 14878 30

501 0.89 7.61 -29.60 31.40 14.34 17.83 -67.60 72.60 14878 30

594 -0.02 4.74 -19.25 21.56 -2.61 10.44 -43.31 46.91 3718 120

715 1.42 3.32 -8.39 16.13 -1.62 4.58 -22.25 19.03 3718 120

972 -0.52 2.81 -10.21 8.96 -4.17 6.99 -25.78 17.16 3717 120

1074 0.20 5.62 -20.74 27.36 2.09 11.75 -54.26 52.73 3718 120

1189 -0.23 2.99 -11.65 12.57 -4.69 7.82 -33.72 25.50 3717 120
127

Table A- 7. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC5 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS 

#obs

sample 

interval

65 22.84 29.03 -44.80 122.40 108.25 31.38 -41.40 205.60 18649 30

81 18.00 23.60 -33.90 102.40 95.89 32.03 -41.10 184.80 18649 30

97 12.97 18.61 -33.70 94.40 85.61 32.21 -53.90 163.00 18649 30

113 10.02 15.27 -34.00 76.00 78.21 31.86 -58.10 148.90 18649 30

129 8.77 13.68 -37.30 61.40 72.05 31.74 -55.90 143.10 18649 30

145 8.16 13.16 -34.10 56.50 66.40 31.76 -56.40 141.80 18649 30

161 7.68 12.92 -33.60 58.40 61.68 31.67 -56.00 128.90 18649 30

177 7.16 12.27 -35.20 59.00 57.77 31.42 -50.80 130.20 18649 30

193 6.55 11.53 -42.10 67.10 54.25 30.73 -43.80 131.70 18649 30

209 6.00 11.02 -41.50 68.40 50.95 29.73 -44.10 129.40 18649 30

225 5.56 10.69 -41.20 64.80 47.93 28.72 -44.90 123.60 18649 30

241 5.16 10.56 -36.30 66.20 45.07 27.71 -38.90 123.50 18649 30

257 4.80 10.43 -32.90 69.00 42.26 26.59 -38.20 121.00 18649 30

273 4.42 10.27 -31.50 61.30 39.51 25.41 -39.70 122.10 18649 30

289 4.06 10.02 -32.60 52.00 36.91 24.35 -41.70 114.90 18649 30

305 3.63 9.70 -30.90 53.30 34.58 23.42 -41.60 104.70 18649 30

321 3.20 9.41 -30.60 47.20 32.38 22.53 -39.80 101.00 18649 30

337 2.78 9.13 -29.70 48.50 30.24 21.74 -43.80 97.30 18649 30

353 2.43 8.84 -28.00 44.70 28.31 21.13 -44.30 98.60 18649 30

369 2.08 8.49 -28.60 41.60 26.46 20.65 -42.40 98.00 18649 30

385 1.67 8.27 -27.50 35.00 24.65 20.10 -39.20 97.30 18649 30

401 1.32 8.05 -30.00 32.80 22.90 19.61 -41.60 102.10 18649 30

417 0.99 7.82 -29.50 34.60 21.34 19.25 -42.30 100.20 18649 30

433 0.67 7.69 -28.40 39.00 19.87 18.89 -44.20 97.10 18649 30

449 0.37 7.60 -28.20 42.00 18.37 18.53 -47.20 95.10 18649 30

465 0.07 7.56 -26.80 38.50 16.88 18.23 -50.00 93.90 18649 30

481 -0.12 7.33 -26.20 33.60 15.43 17.92 -49.90 91.20 18649 30

497 -0.27 7.10 -24.00 35.20 13.97 17.55 -55.10 85.60 18649 30

513 -0.35 7.01 -24.60 32.90 12.52 17.20 -57.10 82.00 18649 30

529 -0.40 7.00 -26.40 34.10 11.04 16.84 -54.40 79.70 18649 30

545 -0.42 6.89 -24.00 34.10 9.70 16.25 -51.10 79.30 18649 30

561 -0.35 6.69 -23.00 30.60 8.31 15.47 -47.60 79.70 18649 30

577 -0.26 6.39 -22.60 31.50 6.86 14.50 -39.70 80.50 18649 30

600 -0.43 5.71 -21.80 24.30 -0.32 10.59 -33.80 49.10 37290 15

722 -0.84 4.97 -23.50 23.30 -4.50 9.64 -39.40 29.90 37291 15

979 -0.73 3.82 -18.60 15.80 -5.32 7.86 -28.00 25.90 37291 15

1080 0.01 3.04 -15.00 16.40 -2.47 5.38 -23.20 19.00 37290 15

1190 0.68 3.11 -10.10 19.50 -1.07 3.04 -15.00 17.20 37289 15
128

Table A- 8. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC6 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

63 13.72 21.52 -43.00 118.70 96.30 19.03 23.10 167.70 15224 30

79 12.87 20.39 -41.40 108.30 93.33 17.53 24.60 159.50 15224 30

95 11.67 18.58 -38.10 95.00 89.47 16.48 7.50 152.70 15224 30

111 10.22 16.69 -35.60 77.70 84.20 15.89 14.60 138.40 15224 30

127 8.78 15.30 -35.70 67.80 78.60 14.97 23.10 139.20 15224 30

143 7.54 14.31 -31.10 61.20 73.05 13.93 16.30 129.80 15224 30

159 6.83 13.62 -36.80 61.20 68.00 13.45 5.20 115.00 15224 30

175 6.47 13.18 -35.80 60.10 63.52 13.49 -5.50 113.20 15224 30

191 6.08 12.77 -35.80 56.30 59.89 13.53 -10.60 112.40 15224 30

207 5.72 12.30 -31.10 60.60 56.73 13.64 -17.40 111.30 15224 30

223 5.18 11.72 -30.70 56.90 54.15 13.82 -20.70 109.30 15224 30

239 4.81 11.36 -35.10 50.50 52.21 14.02 -19.40 108.40 15224 30

255 4.74 11.07 -32.70 52.00 50.78 14.01 -22.10 105.20 15224 30

271 4.66 10.69 -33.80 47.60 49.46 14.18 -23.50 105.20 15224 30

287 4.52 10.40 -31.20 46.80 48.04 14.26 -18.90 97.70 15224 30

303 4.17 10.23 -30.90 44.90 46.64 14.38 -19.50 99.30 15224 30

319 3.78 10.24 -34.20 48.00 45.28 14.58 -25.80 93.50 15224 30

335 3.54 10.13 -38.50 46.10 43.94 14.76 -33.20 90.70 15224 30

351 3.36 10.02 -39.70 43.80 42.59 14.86 -37.50 97.10 15224 30

367 3.12 10.02 -37.50 47.70 41.25 14.91 -39.00 93.50 15224 30

383 2.78 9.93 -36.70 46.60 40.00 15.00 -43.00 91.30 15224 30

399 2.62 9.87 -36.00 43.80 39.03 15.15 -41.50 94.70 15224 30

415 2.50 9.93 -35.80 39.70 38.20 15.11 -39.80 98.00 15224 30

431 2.35 9.99 -36.20 42.20 37.25 14.96 -39.70 99.30 15224 30

447 2.14 9.98 -37.60 48.40 36.40 14.79 -36.10 101.40 15224 30

463 1.97 9.92 -33.40 44.70 35.17 14.60 -35.00 101.40 15224 30

498 -2.55 8.54 -27.10 33.50 33.14 14.04 -18.90 99.00 15223 30

506 -2.47 8.65 -29.00 33.70 33.38 14.30 -20.90 98.40 15223 30

514 -2.46 8.66 -29.10 33.40 33.14 14.34 -21.40 96.00 15223 30

522 -2.45 8.69 -28.90 33.10 32.81 14.32 -22.00 95.40 15223 30

530 -2.46 8.73 -28.80 32.90 32.42 14.25 -24.20 93.70 15223 30

538 -2.50 8.69 -29.70 32.90 32.00 14.13 -23.30 92.50 15223 30

546 -2.56 8.64 -30.60 33.10 31.56 13.99 -24.10 91.50 15223 30

554 -2.59 8.55 -31.10 33.20 31.09 13.84 -23.90 88.70 15223 30

562 -2.61 8.47 -31.90 35.20 30.61 13.69 -25.10 86.00 15223 30

570 -2.64 8.43 -32.10 33.90 30.16 13.52 -24.30 82.50 15223 30
129

Table A- 8. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC6 during Canek 20 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

578 -2.62 8.45 -34.00 33.60 29.71 13.45 -24.80 76.40 15223 30

586 -2.48 8.62 -38.00 40.30 29.15 13.45 -25.60 75.60 15223 30

594 -2.25 8.81 -43.50 41.30 28.24 13.47 -40.70 75.40 15223 30

602 -2.01 8.65 -45.70 40.90 26.36 12.67 -38.40 70.90 15223 30

666 2.11 8.83 -29.20 44.20 24.42 11.99 -41.90 57.00 13300 30

674 2.02 8.59 -24.00 44.90 23.48 11.76 -41.60 56.70 13300 30

682 1.92 8.37 -22.50 44.00 22.47 11.55 -40.60 56.40 13300 30

690 1.80 8.17 -22.00 44.00 21.44 11.35 -34.70 56.60 13300 30

698 1.67 7.97 -23.60 43.30 20.49 11.13 -34.40 55.30 13300 30

706 1.54 7.79 -24.70 41.40 19.66 10.87 -34.50 54.20 13300 30

714 1.46 7.69 -24.70 39.50 19.04 10.61 -34.50 53.10 13300 30

722 1.40 7.63 -24.40 37.60 18.53 10.43 -34.30 49.90 13300 30

730 1.33 7.44 -23.60 35.80 17.64 10.03 -33.80 46.70 13300 30

741 -0.68 3.44 -11.73 10.62 -1.04 5.51 -18.33 17.95 3805 120

848 -0.52 3.21 -11.17 11.07 -0.98 4.50 -16.16 14.65 3805 120

1050 -0.42 3.62 -14.32 11.85 0.85 4.43 -16.27 21.66 3805 120

1257 0.23 5.90 -19.88 28.12 8.41 6.96 -20.70 32.00 3805 120

1870 1.11 6.75 -19.74 32.83 14.27 8.25 -30.12 38.24 3805 120
130

Table A- 9. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC6 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

56 7.73 25.78 -48.00 139.70 95.55 23.56 18.30 186.80 18663 30

72 6.55 23.23 -44.50 120.70 90.52 22.15 17.30 187.40 18663 30

88 5.24 20.66 -40.10 100.30 84.62 21.08 9.90 169.90 18663 30

104 4.15 18.59 -38.10 96.00 78.51 19.98 7.10 154.30 18663 30

120 3.24 16.74 -41.40 75.70 73.00 19.36 -2.30 144.90 18663 30

136 2.82 15.93 -36.40 74.20 68.32 19.07 -10.20 127.80 18663 30

152 2.55 15.67 -37.20 78.00 64.30 19.14 -29.20 117.80 18663 30

168 2.18 15.24 -38.40 71.10 61.08 19.05 -35.10 115.30 18663 30

184 1.83 14.61 -38.20 63.80 58.33 19.02 -34.70 114.10 18663 30

200 1.62 14.18 -39.80 56.70 55.82 19.07 -35.70 110.90 18663 30

216 1.59 13.67 -39.70 58.20 53.61 19.07 -34.30 109.40 18663 30

232 1.58 12.95 -40.60 63.10 51.65 19.08 -33.90 112.30 18663 30

248 1.55 12.36 -38.00 58.40 49.84 19.15 -32.30 110.10 18663 30

264 1.31 11.83 -37.00 54.70 48.31 19.03 -30.20 106.80 18663 30

280 1.02 11.31 -36.50 50.40 46.85 18.90 -27.50 102.10 18663 30

296 0.87 10.92 -33.70 49.90 45.38 18.79 -28.40 100.40 18663 30

312 0.78 10.63 -31.60 52.20 43.87 18.66 -32.50 98.30 18663 30

328 0.65 10.44 -33.10 51.70 42.41 18.58 -33.70 101.80 18663 30

344 0.49 10.34 -32.10 53.40 41.00 18.61 -34.10 105.70 18663 30

360 0.28 10.27 -33.70 48.90 39.71 18.51 -33.20 110.40 18663 30

376 0.05 10.26 -36.60 51.60 38.59 18.50 -35.80 108.80 18663 30

392 -0.10 10.22 -37.80 52.10 37.52 18.60 -37.70 111.80 18663 30

408 -0.25 10.18 -39.60 54.90 36.47 18.67 -43.90 110.30 18663 30

424 -0.44 10.01 -42.90 54.10 35.47 18.61 -41.10 106.30 18663 30

440 -0.66 9.71 -47.30 53.90 34.33 18.52 -38.90 103.60 18663 30

456 -0.74 9.39 -46.80 50.80 32.79 18.21 -34.70 99.40 18663 30

491 4.86 10.19 -43.80 49.50 29.70 17.10 -38.20 87.40 18663 30

499 5.11 10.22 -42.40 49.50 29.69 17.37 -41.00 88.70 18663 30

507 5.01 10.17 -42.20 46.20 29.42 17.38 -41.70 86.30 18663 30

515 4.88 10.17 -44.70 43.30 29.17 17.36 -40.00 84.70 18663 30

523 4.77 10.19 -45.60 42.60 28.89 17.34 -41.60 83.40 18663 30

531 4.70 10.16 -42.40 43.20 28.54 17.32 -42.30 83.50 18663 30

539 4.64 10.09 -43.80 42.30 28.17 17.25 -43.10 81.00 18663 30

547 4.57 10.03 -43.70 39.40 27.74 17.16 -43.90 78.50 18663 30

555 4.46 9.98 -44.10 40.10 27.28 17.03 -45.70 75.10 18663 30

563 4.35 9.92 -43.90 41.60 26.82 16.87 -44.00 72.70 18663 30

571 4.26 9.87 -43.00 42.80 26.33 16.72 -44.00 73.70 18663 30
131

Table A- 9.Basic statistics for Mooring YUC6 during Canek 23 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

579 4.21 9.90 -41.55 47.00 25.72 16.70 -45.50 131.90 18663 30

587 4.22 9.86 -39.49 108.50 25.00 16.62 -86.60 128.88 18663 30

595 4.25 9.60 -37.30 103.39 24.13 16.20 -83.78 124.57 18663 30

626 1.49 8.14 -50.27 41.96 22.45 13.69 -48.86 95.41 18663 30

634 1.51 9.35 -58.60 48.50 22.49 15.07 -56.30 103.11 18663 30

642 1.32 9.50 -61.40 43.20 22.34 15.22 -56.00 104.76 18663 30

650 1.41 9.33 -44.50 44.43 21.89 14.93 -39.50 104.35 18663 30

658 1.34 8.83 -40.10 44.60 21.41 14.47 -37.30 103.50 18663 30

666 1.28 8.45 -32.40 31.60 20.74 13.99 -36.90 70.30 18663 30

674 1.18 8.19 -28.10 31.20 19.90 13.58 -36.10 64.70 18663 30

682 1.11 7.94 -27.50 32.80 19.02 13.21 -34.00 62.70 18663 30

690 1.07 7.73 -25.70 31.80 18.17 12.82 -34.50 60.70 18663 30

698 1.02 7.57 -23.50 32.70 17.33 12.40 -33.60 59.30 18663 30

706 0.98 7.42 -25.00 32.40 16.53 12.03 -31.30 56.10 18663 30

714 0.93 7.28 -24.60 32.00 15.89 11.76 -29.20 53.80 18663 30

722 0.80 7.12 -24.40 31.30 15.35 11.53 -28.20 52.10 18663 30

730 0.62 6.91 -25.40 29.60 14.73 11.16 -28.60 50.10 18663 30

741 -0.08 6.20 -23.10 21.36 12.65 9.28 -28.46 38.01 18660 30

847 0.39 6.02 -20.90 27.00 6.57 8.65 -40.40 36.00 37322 15

1050 -0.54 4.84 -19.56 19.73 0.26 6.06 -21.07 20.95 18662 30

1256 -1.21 3.58 -18.70 15.20 -2.41 5.71 -25.10 16.80 37320 45

1870 -0.37 4.07 -14.98 14.24 -1.73 6.51 -21.93 15.94 18661 30
132

Table A- 10. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC7 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS #

obs

sample 

interv

63 8.76 15.78 -45.50 68.10 54.32 19.60 4.60 140.40 15251 30

79 9.10 15.49 -35.60 64.50 55.48 18.80 -0.30 131.30 15251 30

95 8.61 14.94 -34.90 62.20 54.33 18.02 3.70 113.70 15251 30

111 8.07 14.28 -38.30 59.10 52.40 17.03 -2.20 107.70 15251 30

127 7.32 13.61 -36.40 62.10 49.38 15.78 -5.40 102.40 15251 30

143 6.40 12.90 -33.00 57.10 46.04 14.84 -7.90 95.90 15251 30

159 5.53 12.23 -33.20 51.70 42.54 14.01 -11.30 87.20 15251 30

175 5.01 11.62 -33.90 51.10 39.54 13.08 -9.10 81.50 15251 30

191 4.84 11.16 -29.60 58.50 37.09 12.39 -11.80 75.80 15251 30

207 4.31 10.91 -32.30 52.70 35.00 11.95 -12.90 74.40 15251 30

223 3.82 10.53 -30.80 52.20 33.11 11.56 -11.30 76.60 15251 30

239 3.60 10.30 -32.20 52.90 31.54 11.24 -8.50 75.80 15251 30

255 3.62 10.17 -32.00 51.20 30.28 11.10 -12.70 74.80 15251 30

271 3.51 10.05 -32.60 51.90 29.18 11.16 -16.20 73.20 15251 30

287 3.41 9.92 -33.60 48.20 28.29 11.04 -14.80 71.50 15251 30

303 3.27 9.68 -29.10 48.10 27.49 10.81 -11.40 68.80 15251 30

319 3.02 9.32 -30.40 42.60 26.59 10.60 -12.10 63.30 15251 30

335 2.62 8.97 -29.60 40.80 25.66 10.53 -8.20 62.80 15251 30

351 2.62 8.70 -28.30 39.20 24.70 10.36 -9.40 63.20 15251 30

367 2.50 8.52 -28.80 37.10 23.84 10.11 -13.30 62.60 15251 30

383 2.40 8.42 -25.80 39.70 23.03 9.98 -14.80 58.20 15251 30

399 2.26 8.42 -28.40 40.20 22.20 10.01 -17.30 57.20 15251 30

415 2.08 8.36 -30.30 41.40 21.39 9.96 -19.80 56.50 15251 30

431 1.89 8.36 -30.60 36.80 20.67 9.92 -18.40 55.00 15251 30

447 1.79 8.34 -34.20 36.60 19.95 9.91 -16.50 58.30 15251 30

463 1.77 8.30 -38.50 37.40 19.24 9.92 -16.60 53.00 15251 30

479 1.77 8.35 -31.80 33.20 18.27 9.89 -16.70 54.40 15251 30

514 3.60 8.62 -32.20 34.00 15.78 9.47 -20.70 46.00 15252 30

522 3.70 8.70 -32.60 35.20 15.68 9.67 -19.40 47.00 15252 30

530 3.63 8.68 -32.00 33.70 15.53 9.77 -17.90 47.60 15252 30

538 3.58 8.62 -30.60 32.30 15.38 9.82 -18.90 49.40 15252 30

546 3.55 8.53 -30.30 30.70 15.21 9.87 -17.20 50.60 15252 30

554 3.51 8.49 -29.60 30.20 15.02 9.89 -17.00 51.30 15252 30

562 3.48 8.44 -28.80 30.40 14.78 9.93 -17.00 52.20 15252 30

570 3.47 8.39 -28.90 31.00 14.54 9.97 -17.60 50.90 15252 30

578 3.41 8.38 -29.00 32.80 14.32 10.07 -17.00 48.70 15252 30

586 3.36 8.60 -32.00 38.90 14.10 10.30 -20.50 55.60 15252 30
133

Table A- 10. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC7 during Canek 20 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

704 1.57 6.64 -20.85 25.74 10.03 9.31 -16.35 38.07 3811 120

961 0.55 5.39 -19.97 18.60 2.77 6.24 -16.53 26.90 3811 120

1520 -1.35 3.46 -19.98 8.38 0.91 8.06 -27.46 27.15 3811 120

1903 0.87 4.87 -17.85 19.34 4.88 12.21 -32.62 43.69 3811 120

2018 0.19 4.64 -21.20 17.07 4.50 10.74 -25.53 35.17 3811 120
134

Table A- 11. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC7 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

59 19.10 27.90 -41.90 130.20 59.19 20.80 -1.70 139.50 18634 30

75 19.00 27.31 -37.90 121.20 58.70 20.24 0.10 134.00 18634 30

91 17.79 25.77 -34.20 108.80 57.09 19.26 1.80 135.00 18634 30

107 16.34 23.99 -36.20 98.50 54.57 18.20 5.70 131.20 18634 30

123 14.83 22.11 -38.10 94.20 51.07 17.10 -2.20 122.90 18634 30

139 13.34 20.21 -40.00 85.30 47.15 15.96 -7.10 119.10 18634 30

155 12.14 18.54 -35.60 78.10 43.67 15.19 -6.00 112.30 18634 30

171 11.37 17.31 -30.20 72.80 40.68 14.72 -6.40 100.40 18634 30

187 10.76 16.58 -28.70 71.80 38.36 14.37 -8.80 89.20 18634 30

203 10.23 16.11 -30.80 71.20 36.26 13.98 -3.40 90.30 18634 30

219 9.77 15.46 -29.30 70.80 34.26 13.57 -8.70 83.20 18634 30

235 9.36 14.99 -29.10 70.90 32.60 13.48 -13.20 80.10 18634 30

251 9.04 14.65 -30.00 70.70 31.15 13.44 -15.60 82.90 18634 30

267 8.82 14.31 -31.70 70.00 29.94 13.34 -17.50 83.10 18634 30

283 8.58 13.90 -34.90 65.60 28.93 13.25 -19.70 82.70 18634 30

299 8.28 13.50 -36.30 62.60 28.10 13.09 -18.00 78.20 18634 30

315 7.88 13.19 -37.10 61.10 27.27 12.91 -19.60 77.60 18634 30

331 7.58 12.86 -37.00 57.20 26.41 12.76 -20.30 74.90 18634 30

347 7.37 12.53 -35.90 53.40 25.49 12.66 -21.40 72.30 18634 30

363 7.20 12.36 -34.20 52.10 24.56 12.50 -24.80 67.70 18634 30

379 6.90 12.16 -35.80 53.00 23.59 12.41 -26.20 66.20 18634 30

395 6.58 12.00 -32.00 55.90 22.60 12.25 -23.50 62.90 18634 30

411 6.40 11.89 -34.50 56.10 21.77 12.12 -21.40 60.90 18634 30

427 6.19 11.70 -32.80 55.00 20.96 12.04 -21.70 58.60 18634 30

443 6.10 11.48 -34.00 52.30 20.23 11.96 -22.40 59.50 18634 30

459 5.99 11.30 -35.40 52.60 19.52 11.95 -23.60 58.30 18634 30

475 5.86 11.23 -37.70 52.80 18.71 11.94 -24.60 57.80 18634 30

491 5.65 11.04 -36.00 53.80 17.71 11.89 -29.00 58.10 18634 30

503 5.60 8.69 -24.80 46.00 17.35 11.32 -24.00 64.10 18634 30

511 5.70 8.84 -24.20 48.40 17.22 11.52 -25.10 64.30 18634 30

519 5.63 8.91 -24.20 45.80 17.03 11.62 -25.10 60.40 18634 30

527 5.60 8.94 -24.20 43.90 16.85 11.69 -26.10 57.80 18634 30

535 5.58 9.00 -24.00 47.10 16.68 11.75 -27.60 54.80 18634 30

543 5.58 9.02 -23.80 47.20 16.51 11.77 -28.10 55.60 18634 30

551 5.56 9.05 -25.10 45.70 16.31 11.76 -27.70 56.00 18634 30

559 5.51 9.05 -25.20 46.90 16.04 11.77 -27.20 56.90 18634 30

567 5.47 9.02 -25.60 48.70 15.76 11.79 -26.50 57.70 18634 30
135

Table A- 11. Basic statistics for Mooring YUC7 during Canek 23 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

575 5.43 9.00 -28.40 48.40 15.51 11.83 -25.40 58.80 18634 30

583 5.36 9.00 -28.00 46.10 15.25 11.91 -26.40 58.80 18634 30

591 5.29 9.13 -28.80 43.30 14.96 12.11 -38.10 61.50 18634 30

599 5.12 9.36 -42.70 50.80 14.58 12.33 -37.89 60.90 18634 30

600 -0.43 5.71 -21.80 24.30 -0.32 10.59 -33.80 49.10 37290 15

607 5.34 9.10 -45.60 50.30 14.08 12.40 -39.80 64.00 18634 30

696 2.77 8.69 -32.93 38.98 11.12 11.42 -24.14 49.35 18632 30

953 0.52 6.45 -22.80 23.50 4.95 6.64 -18.30 33.40 37260 45

1155 0.02 3.94 -14.15 13.92 3.16 5.87 -14.54 28.82 9313 60

1512 -1.49 4.41 -22.10 16.10 3.38 8.95 -23.80 37.30 37260 45

1895 -0.45 5.40 -23.44 17.20 6.99 13.21 -26.43 49.45 18632 30

2010 -0.38 4.53 -23.30 16.20 6.27 10.90 -19.80 45.20 37263 15
136

Table A- 12. Basic statistics for Mooring PE1 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

28 -5.52 15.17 -45.90 41.00 -10.14 11.53 -51.10 21.30 2500 30

36 -4.08 14.41 -46.00 41.80 -9.94 13.16 -50.60 26.60 2500 30

44 -2.67 12.59 -41.50 35.10 -8.18 13.94 -51.40 32.80 2500 30

52 -1.62 10.97 -46.30 29.00 -6.04 14.20 -51.80 37.60 2500 30

60 -0.78 10.12 -34.80 26.90 -4.08 14.09 -47.60 40.60 2500 30

68 -0.14 9.74 -29.30 26.70 -2.63 13.54 -47.70 44.70 2500 30

76 0.19 9.66 -29.60 28.80 -1.61 13.20 -46.80 45.90 2500 30

84 0.24 9.75 -27.00 29.40 -0.97 13.04 -44.30 42.70 2500 30

92 0.32 9.91 -29.20 29.10 -0.83 13.20 -42.50 42.40 2500 30

100 0.99 9.78 -30.20 35.00 -1.33 13.23 -38.30 41.40 2500 30

108 2.68 9.37 -26.00 40.60 -2.16 13.10 -38.30 39.60 2500 30

Table A- 13. Basic statistics for Mooring PE1 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

11 -13.98 17.02 -80.70 59.40 -2.22 16.86 -88.40 104.90 18192 30

19 -5.49 18.06 -84.70 57.30 -8.12 16.25 -89.40 56.20 18192 30

27 -4.82 16.25 -74.30 56.90 -9.13 15.49 -76.30 47.50 18192 30

35 -3.19 14.65 -66.70 54.20 -8.77 15.17 -74.30 57.30 18192 30

43 -1.97 13.57 -62.30 61.40 -7.96 15.27 -79.50 54.70 18192 30

51 -1.10 12.72 -59.50 56.10 -6.81 15.38 -85.70 51.10 18192 30

59 -0.57 11.80 -53.20 47.60 -5.48 15.28 -83.70 47.90 18192 30

67 -0.44 10.99 -44.30 50.50 -4.08 14.86 -85.50 44.90 18192 30

75 -0.38 10.33 -40.20 50.20 -2.96 14.32 -89.20 53.20 18192 30

83 -0.22 9.84 -35.70 52.70 -2.29 13.78 -86.80 52.60 18192 30

91 0.18 9.37 -37.80 47.90 -2.17 13.28 -78.40 62.20 18192 30

99 0.77 8.90 -33.20 45.60 -2.47 12.82 -70.40 52.80 18192 30

107 1.61 8.56 -36.00 43.30 -2.99 12.35 -64.10 47.30 18192 30
137

Table A- 14. Basic statistics for Mooring PE2 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

58 -25.43 37.71 -127.40 65.60 54.37 74.79 -75.70 217.40 15694 30

74 -23.11 35.69 -117.90 79.40 49.45 70.29 -79.10 204.50 15694 30

90 -20.58 33.64 -116.90 85.00 44.05 64.81 -80.60 182.90 15694 30

106 -18.20 31.31 -110.60 89.30 38.96 59.47 -81.30 161.50 15694 30

122 -16.10 29.01 -105.70 95.00 34.79 55.04 -79.90 151.90 15694 30

138 -14.18 27.07 -88.60 83.20 31.43 51.35 -79.50 143.00 15694 30

154 -12.73 25.32 -87.40 82.10 28.81 47.88 -70.60 141.10 15694 30

170 -11.55 23.98 -77.30 76.40 26.70 44.86 -70.00 137.80 15694 30

186 -10.48 22.91 -74.00 63.50 24.93 42.37 -71.70 131.30 15694 30

202 -9.59 22.01 -73.70 58.90 23.24 40.21 -61.80 129.40 15694 30

218 -8.72 21.06 -69.20 59.70 21.54 38.17 -54.20 126.80 15694 30

234 -8.06 20.09 -70.30 62.10 19.95 36.17 -56.60 114.90 15694 30

250 -7.44 19.28 -71.00 63.50 18.37 34.24 -56.00 107.80 15694 30

266 -6.83 18.62 -73.20 59.20 16.89 32.45 -53.50 104.30 15694 30

282 -6.15 17.94 -67.00 59.60 15.60 30.97 -51.00 100.80 15694 30

298 -5.43 17.09 -61.20 59.30 14.32 29.68 -51.50 99.40 15694 30

314 -4.87 16.37 -55.60 49.90 13.18 28.46 -55.90 95.20 15694 30

330 -4.43 15.76 -54.20 45.20 11.99 27.25 -53.90 96.20 15694 30

346 -4.13 15.20 -54.00 45.10 10.87 26.15 -56.80 85.60 15694 30

362 -3.69 14.65 -48.70 44.00 9.81 25.38 -52.40 88.10 15694 30

378 -3.12 14.10 -51.40 40.10 8.93 24.68 -53.40 90.50 15694 30

394 -2.50 13.58 -54.90 43.20 7.88 23.82 -49.20 85.90 15694 30

410 -1.98 13.20 -49.20 43.10 6.75 22.97 -52.00 73.00 15694 30

426 -1.48 12.92 -52.90 43.90 5.61 22.24 -51.20 69.70 15694 30

442 -0.87 12.52 -51.60 40.90 4.57 21.47 -50.80 69.90 15694 30

458 -0.11 12.09 -48.70 42.80 3.40 20.24 -48.10 69.00 15694 30

474 0.90 11.70 -50.50 42.30 1.87 17.98 -47.20 68.40 15694 30
138

Table A- 15. Basic statistics for Mooring PE2 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

46 -23.48 25.86 -117.70 41.00 43.26 53.14 -54.30 183.30 18146 30

62 -25.47 32.44 -146.60 49.00 55.92 68.55 -70.10 206.20 18146 30

78 -23.43 30.17 -138.30 50.10 49.06 62.88 -69.80 179.10 18146 30

94 -21.38 28.39 -120.90 54.80 43.08 57.29 -64.90 164.70 18146 30

110 -19.10 26.65 -105.80 54.70 38.19 52.65 -66.60 149.60 18146 30

126 -16.95 24.69 -99.80 50.80 34.24 48.69 -63.20 139.40 18146 30

142 -15.11 23.04 -93.20 44.70 30.95 45.36 -61.10 137.60 18146 30

158 -13.67 21.84 -88.40 43.40 28.17 42.38 -57.40 135.20 18146 30

174 -12.54 20.78 -76.90 42.50 25.79 39.99 -54.00 129.70 18146 30

190 -11.57 19.99 -74.20 43.30 23.69 37.70 -52.90 124.20 18146 30

206 -10.67 19.38 -70.80 42.50 21.75 35.70 -52.40 118.60 18146 30

222 -9.83 18.63 -67.90 38.50 20.08 34.07 -52.50 111.60 18146 30

238 -8.83 17.82 -62.10 40.90 18.68 32.47 -50.00 98.20 18146 30

254 -7.77 17.08 -59.80 42.00 17.35 30.88 -51.10 89.70 18146 30

270 -6.99 16.35 -57.00 43.10 16.01 29.51 -52.00 90.00 18146 30

286 -6.41 15.73 -57.00 45.40 14.64 28.23 -50.20 92.40 18146 30

302 -5.84 15.28 -55.00 49.90 13.35 27.00 -50.20 84.00 18146 30

318 -5.30 14.81 -52.00 57.00 12.16 25.90 -52.50 84.20 18146 30

334 -4.76 14.30 -61.20 53.50 11.13 25.08 -54.10 80.20 18146 30

350 -4.08 13.71 -60.80 54.70 10.16 24.28 -51.90 79.70 18146 30

366 -3.48 13.26 -49.50 57.10 8.95 23.39 -52.80 75.70 18146 30

382 -2.88 12.90 -47.80 54.80 7.61 22.61 -53.00 78.60 18146 30

398 -2.27 12.58 -43.80 49.70 6.20 21.91 -52.90 77.10 18146 30

414 -1.52 12.22 -43.80 52.30 4.79 21.27 -54.40 70.40 18146 30

430 -0.83 11.92 -46.40 52.20 3.39 20.58 -57.80 71.10 18146 30

446 -0.23 11.55 -38.90 48.80 2.02 19.71 -58.20 67.40 18146 30

462 0.43 11.03 -37.80 48.30 0.66 18.35 -51.30 64.90 18146 30

478 1.14 10.29 -36.90 43.70 -0.46 15.99 -47.30 53.50 18146 30
139

Table A- 16. Basic statistics for Mooring PE3 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

56 -18.68 32.72 -112.30 77.00 50.07 47.80 -73.50 173.50 15692 30

72 -20.57 32.98 -100.10 74.40 52.34 48.47 -68.70 169.50 15692 30

88 -20.42 31.67 -92.40 72.20 50.67 46.74 -61.80 161.90 15692 30

104 -19.63 30.37 -93.80 72.40 48.07 44.80 -57.70 154.20 15692 30

120 -18.40 28.91 -86.80 67.30 44.80 42.22 -57.90 149.80 15692 30

136 -17.11 27.65 -81.40 65.10 41.70 39.82 -48.40 144.70 15692 30

152 -15.81 26.43 -79.70 65.20 38.79 37.76 -52.30 130.60 15692 30

168 -14.47 25.02 -79.50 67.40 36.22 35.90 -53.50 125.20 15692 30

184 -13.55 24.00 -80.30 70.20 34.22 34.43 -48.80 122.80 15692 30

200 -12.79 23.25 -80.30 71.40 32.71 33.31 -45.10 115.60 15692 30

216 -11.96 22.52 -76.00 78.00 31.38 32.18 -42.70 107.20 15692 30

232 -11.39 21.79 -73.20 86.20 30.08 31.27 -41.10 104.80 15692 30

248 -10.98 21.24 -77.80 82.20 29.12 30.51 -37.70 101.10 15692 30

264 -10.56 20.61 -73.00 80.10 28.21 29.79 -36.60 99.30 15692 30

280 -10.27 20.23 -74.90 77.40 27.23 29.03 -38.50 100.60 15692 30

296 -9.97 19.92 -74.50 68.50 26.39 28.47 -44.30 97.40 15692 30

312 -9.72 19.52 -73.90 65.20 25.63 27.98 -43.90 95.80 15692 30

328 -9.39 18.98 -76.20 56.80 24.73 27.57 -42.40 98.00 15692 30

344 -9.07 18.58 -70.80 57.10 23.85 27.18 -45.00 95.10 15692 30

360 -8.75 18.13 -67.40 51.50 23.10 26.62 -43.10 93.40 15692 30

376 -8.48 17.65 -67.20 51.30 22.29 26.10 -36.90 88.00 15692 30

392 -8.25 17.17 -65.30 51.40 21.56 25.53 -34.80 84.10 15692 30

408 -7.89 16.76 -59.00 52.90 20.85 25.06 -36.80 85.80 15692 30

424 -7.53 16.39 -62.40 51.20 20.19 24.62 -35.50 88.60 15692 30

440 -7.21 15.98 -58.30 51.40 19.47 24.21 -36.60 89.00 15692 30

456 -6.87 15.61 -61.20 52.90 18.81 23.68 -34.00 89.10 15692 30

472 -6.46 14.98 -59.50 53.70 17.90 22.92 -35.90 89.00 15692 30

589 -3.47 11.97 -45.90 42.80 14.63 19.59 -38.50 76.20 31384 15

794 -2.38 8.77 -29.80 32.40 7.11 14.13 -32.90 59.00 31325 15

989 0.56 8.38 -32.70 30.00 0.63 9.77 -31.90 31.60 31385 15
140

Table A- 17. Basic statistics for Mooring PE3 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

57 -20.21 27.58 -128.40 75.30 54.22 49.15 -70.50 219.20 16826 30

73 -21.19 27.44 -128.70 63.40 61.18 52.31 -70.60 191.50 16826 30

89 -20.36 26.21 -125.40 58.40 56.79 49.75 -68.30 174.30 16826 30

105 -19.27 24.87 -111.70 54.90 52.16 47.05 -68.40 159.40 16826 30

121 -17.96 23.49 -110.60 51.70 47.76 44.34 -65.60 147.60 16826 30

137 -16.50 22.13 -103.10 51.30 43.73 41.60 -62.90 138.00 16826 30

153 -15.27 21.05 -83.70 52.50 40.62 39.43 -57.60 128.60 16826 30

169 -14.24 20.19 -81.80 56.00 38.22 37.72 -56.30 120.40 16826 30

185 -13.30 19.30 -69.80 57.40 36.11 36.13 -58.70 112.30 16826 30

201 -12.33 18.50 -61.50 56.90 34.18 34.58 -56.10 111.80 16826 30

217 -11.68 17.94 -60.90 54.80 32.37 33.12 -51.30 109.80 16826 30

233 -11.21 17.48 -61.20 52.90 30.88 31.98 -47.00 106.40 16826 30

249 -10.68 17.08 -61.30 51.00 29.51 31.01 -46.70 104.70 16826 30

265 -10.27 16.60 -59.00 48.80 28.43 30.11 -47.80 103.50 16826 30

281 -9.80 16.06 -58.40 46.00 27.42 29.28 -45.30 104.10 16826 30

297 -9.32 15.65 -59.10 42.90 26.42 28.57 -47.30 104.30 16826 30

313 -8.86 15.32 -55.70 41.60 25.39 27.91 -46.80 103.10 16826 30

329 -8.38 14.91 -53.20 42.60 24.34 27.23 -46.40 104.80 16826 30

345 -7.92 14.46 -55.70 40.70 23.28 26.50 -46.00 106.40 16826 30

361 -7.66 14.06 -55.50 40.80 22.31 25.81 -43.40 107.90 16826 30

377 -7.38 13.75 -56.90 39.10 21.36 25.16 -41.70 107.90 16826 30

393 -6.97 13.49 -59.20 37.90 20.49 24.61 -41.90 109.80 16826 30

409 -6.62 13.18 -59.00 39.30 19.61 24.03 -41.80 108.30 16826 30

425 -6.35 12.81 -55.70 38.40 18.80 23.51 -41.50 106.90 16826 30

441 -6.00 12.52 -50.50 38.70 18.01 23.03 -38.70 105.10 16826 30

457 -5.64 12.22 -47.80 37.40 17.16 22.56 -40.00 103.90 16826 30

473 -5.33 11.80 -41.30 33.70 16.27 21.96 -43.40 103.60 16826 30

489 -4.97 11.27 -38.90 32.60 15.31 21.05 -39.90 100.10 16826 30

591 -3.69 9.27 -39.48 27.42 10.72 17.38 -34.77 84.11 9051 60

795 -1.02 6.94 -25.56 23.42 2.99 12.22 -31.36 58.66 9051 60

991 0.58 6.52 -23.04 20.81 -0.91 7.79 -29.03 26.86 9051 60
141

Table A- 18. Basic statistics for Mooring PE4 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

47 -4.10 28.29 -112.00 96.00 41.38 36.69 -56.30 184.70 11258 30

63 -2.44 28.81 -111.70 89.00 45.62 38.13 -54.00 156.70 11258 30

79 -2.27 27.56 -104.10 79.60 43.50 35.44 -53.00 129.10 11258 30

95 -2.15 26.34 -93.10 74.50 40.92 32.91 -51.80 126.90 11258 30

111 -2.15 24.93 -77.80 65.90 38.30 30.83 -52.70 115.40 11258 30

127 -1.56 23.55 -66.50 58.30 35.96 29.00 -45.00 109.40 11258 30

143 -1.07 22.19 -65.30 59.50 33.71 27.54 -38.20 105.20 11258 30

159 -0.72 21.11 -62.70 64.60 31.77 26.34 -42.00 102.30 11258 30

175 -0.41 20.27 -63.60 63.30 30.14 25.30 -36.40 100.10 11258 30

191 -0.02 19.71 -63.90 62.20 28.62 24.33 -33.80 93.60 11258 30

207 0.11 19.26 -60.60 60.70 27.29 23.65 -31.00 93.60 11258 30

223 0.27 18.88 -58.80 63.70 26.10 23.06 -32.50 89.30 11258 30

239 0.27 18.42 -54.60 62.90 24.94 22.62 -31.70 86.30 11258 30

255 0.32 18.02 -59.10 63.00 23.99 22.18 -33.60 88.80 11258 30

271 0.50 17.57 -55.60 58.20 23.04 21.55 -30.80 87.50 11258 30

287 0.61 17.24 -55.60 64.20 22.03 21.07 -31.30 85.70 11258 30

303 0.67 16.83 -51.50 61.00 21.15 20.62 -30.30 85.60 11258 30

319 0.57 16.51 -53.90 59.30 20.23 20.05 -31.80 90.30 11258 30

335 0.41 16.13 -50.60 58.30 19.54 19.61 -29.70 83.50 11258 30

351 0.39 15.72 -49.50 59.10 18.74 19.15 -31.10 79.70 11258 30

367 0.38 15.41 -48.60 58.10 17.95 18.73 -30.10 75.40 11258 30

383 0.44 15.06 -47.30 57.40 17.07 18.44 -29.90 76.20 11258 30

399 0.47 14.63 -47.50 59.00 16.30 18.05 -31.00 74.50 11258 30

415 0.51 14.34 -46.20 56.50 15.60 17.51 -31.30 72.10 11258 30

418 -7.70 17.07 -54.32 62.60 15.31 15.47 -30.70 81.41 15715 30

431 0.41 14.10 -48.60 57.10 14.79 17.04 -32.30 72.80 11258 30

434 -7.90 16.84 -55.06 63.21 14.73 15.11 -31.00 81.19 15715 30

447 0.43 13.60 -45.60 57.20 13.82 16.34 -33.00 72.70 11258 30

450 -7.55 16.39 -54.50 63.10 14.04 14.76 -30.90 80.61 15715 30

466 -7.21 15.94 -54.10 60.00 13.36 14.45 -34.60 80.30 15715 30

482 -6.94 15.52 -55.10 56.60 12.74 14.09 -30.40 70.50 15715 30

498 -6.65 15.04 -54.00 56.30 12.17 13.78 -31.40 68.10 15715 30

514 -6.38 14.64 -53.90 53.10 11.69 13.52 -33.70 66.00 15715 30

530 -6.26 14.23 -51.50 54.40 11.32 13.29 -34.10 64.60 15715 30

546 -6.08 14.01 -49.30 53.20 10.97 13.04 -39.60 63.90 15715 30

562 -5.91 13.88 -49.40 57.50 10.59 12.84 -39.00 63.50 15715 30

578 -5.74 13.69 -49.10 54.70 10.23 12.69 -40.00 64.20 15715 30
142

Table A- 18. Basic statistics for Mooring PE4 during Canek 20 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

594 -5.50 13.50 -50.20 56.30 9.90 12.51 -38.80 66.20 15715 30

610 -5.27 13.17 -51.30 53.60 9.64 12.26 -37.30 66.20 15715 30

626 -5.08 12.92 -50.70 51.60 9.21 12.04 -39.20 62.40 15715 30

642 -4.93 12.67 -50.30 51.50 8.75 11.80 -42.30 63.60 15715 30

658 -4.88 12.35 -48.00 51.00 8.49 11.60 -40.80 64.50 15715 30

674 -4.76 12.01 -46.10 50.10 8.32 11.41 -40.30 63.30 15715 30

690 -4.62 11.73 -41.60 45.60 8.09 11.18 -42.10 61.90 15715 30

706 -4.39 11.46 -39.30 43.70 7.71 10.99 -40.00 60.10 15715 30

722 -4.14 11.13 -39.00 42.90 7.33 10.79 -40.30 58.00 15715 30

738 -3.95 10.87 -36.60 41.20 6.95 10.48 -41.40 53.90 15715 30

754 -3.87 10.67 -34.90 43.00 6.50 10.29 -39.30 56.80 15715 30

770 -3.69 10.47 -35.90 40.20 6.13 10.18 -41.50 55.90 15715 30

786 -3.50 10.18 -34.90 38.70 5.90 10.01 -38.80 57.10 15715 30

802 -3.31 9.93 -33.30 38.40 5.64 9.85 -38.00 56.40 15715 30

818 -3.05 9.75 -32.30 36.50 5.25 9.53 -41.10 55.00 15715 30

834 -2.84 9.56 -31.90 37.20 4.85 9.24 -37.50 44.60 15715 30

850 -2.65 9.34 -29.40 38.50 4.53 8.87 -36.80 42.90 15715 30

866 -2.51 9.15 -30.90 42.30 4.17 8.49 -29.00 44.50 15715 30

882 -2.37 8.88 -31.30 41.50 3.80 8.17 -26.80 39.10 15715 30

898 -2.17 8.52 -27.30 41.30 3.48 7.87 -24.30 38.00 15715 30

914 -1.94 8.19 -30.00 41.10 3.12 7.53 -23.60 36.60 15715 30

930 -1.79 7.86 -26.40 40.40 2.55 7.18 -25.30 36.20 15715 30

946 -1.61 7.33 -27.00 37.90 2.13 6.69 -29.10 36.10 15715 30

962 -0.69 9.13 -30.10 41.00 4.20 8.83 -27.30 46.80 15715 30

1239 0.86 5.75 -17.50 25.60 -1.81 6.22 -22.30 21.80 31430 45

1495 0.68 5.42 -17.00 21.30 -1.53 6.22 -27.70 17.50 31430 45

1989 0.16 5.45 -21.00 27.00 -0.90 4.88 -21.10 18.40 31431 45
143

Table A- 19. Basic statistics for Mooring PE4 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

36 -30.73 22.33 -101.20 65.60 19.64 32.44 -116.40 168.10 18112 30

52 -11.12 26.82 -129.20 89.10 59.35 45.47 -79.10 193.00 18112 30

68 -11.37 25.24 -120.40 78.80 56.42 42.12 -74.50 170.20 18112 30

84 -11.40 23.95 -119.10 63.70 53.55 39.24 -63.70 167.20 18112 30

100 -11.00 22.52 -122.60 62.20 50.26 36.36 -65.20 154.50 18112 30

116 -10.43 21.17 -114.30 60.40 46.66 33.64 -64.00 127.80 18112 30

132 -9.92 20.13 -100.20 57.80 43.38 31.32 -62.70 117.70 18112 30

148 -9.34 19.15 -81.20 52.40 40.56 29.40 -54.50 116.80 18112 30

164 -8.68 18.33 -78.10 53.00 38.41 28.05 -51.10 109.40 18112 30

180 -8.18 17.66 -78.80 54.60 36.58 27.02 -47.90 109.10 18112 30

196 -7.89 17.09 -66.30 52.40 34.91 26.29 -48.50 101.50 18112 30

212 -7.35 16.61 -63.30 50.50 33.20 25.49 -46.10 95.40 18112 30

228 -6.97 16.22 -57.20 49.30 31.75 24.76 -43.00 93.60 18112 30

244 -6.58 15.73 -54.80 48.50 30.48 24.03 -47.40 94.90 18112 30

260 -6.07 15.19 -56.90 46.90 29.26 23.39 -47.20 96.50 18112 30

276 -5.77 14.75 -52.20 47.40 28.31 22.91 -43.00 93.60 18112 30

292 -5.53 14.40 -51.50 47.30 27.39 22.40 -42.80 93.70 18112 30

308 -5.32 14.14 -47.60 48.30 26.53 21.83 -42.50 89.90 18112 30

324 -5.16 13.92 -45.90 46.50 25.72 21.28 -39.00 85.50 18112 30

340 -5.03 13.58 -45.10 45.40 24.93 20.86 -43.10 79.90 18112 30

356 -4.84 13.30 -44.40 43.90 24.00 20.44 -48.80 81.70 18112 30

372 -4.76 13.01 -42.90 42.60 23.08 19.84 -49.30 81.00 18112 30

388 -4.62 12.72 -44.70 41.60 22.19 19.23 -52.50 74.70 18112 30

404 -4.44 12.50 -47.10 39.70 21.43 18.79 -49.50 77.20 18112 30

420 -4.19 12.25 -50.70 41.00 20.62 18.42 -48.30 74.60 18112 30

436 -4.07 11.96 -50.80 39.60 19.81 18.00 -51.60 72.50 18112 30

441 -6.67 12.58 -57.50 40.40 19.16 17.83 -54.90 70.50 18112 30

452 -3.92 11.66 -49.00 38.00 19.01 17.51 -52.00 71.20 18112 30

457 -6.46 12.20 -55.60 38.10 18.35 17.32 -53.00 68.60 18112 30

468 -3.73 11.18 -48.40 36.60 17.99 16.81 -48.00 68.70 18112 30

473 -6.22 11.82 -57.10 38.80 17.55 16.81 -49.60 70.60 18112 30

489 -5.96 11.50 -54.80 37.70 16.80 16.37 -48.90 72.20 18112 30

505 -5.76 11.17 -51.50 38.70 16.09 15.93 -50.20 69.40 18112 30

521 -5.54 10.88 -50.40 37.10 15.39 15.46 -49.50 67.30 18112 30

537 -5.26 10.73 -51.00 36.10 14.81 15.08 -49.70 65.50 18112 30

553 -5.09 10.59 -46.80 36.90 14.18 14.77 -46.20 65.10 18112 30

569 -4.97 10.45 -45.00 35.90 13.57 14.51 -42.40 64.80 18112 30
144

Table A- 19. Basic statistics for Mooring PE4 during Canek 23 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

585 -4.83 10.27 -41.10 35.20 13.04 14.18 -38.70 64.60 18112 30

601 -4.69 10.00 -39.60 36.50 12.54 13.80 -39.30 64.00 18112 30

617 -4.58 9.77 -39.20 38.80 11.93 13.46 -36.80 63.80 18112 30

633 -4.42 9.62 -41.40 34.40 11.27 13.12 -35.00 63.50 18112 30

649 -4.20 9.46 -44.10 33.50 10.67 12.81 -34.50 61.70 18112 30

665 -4.01 9.30 -44.80 33.10 10.11 12.49 -34.90 60.40 18112 30

681 -3.89 9.06 -40.10 34.00 9.56 12.14 -33.80 52.70 18112 30

697 -3.78 8.91 -40.50 35.20 9.01 11.85 -33.10 48.30 18112 30

713 -3.65 8.75 -37.90 34.50 8.41 11.56 -34.30 49.50 18112 30

729 -3.49 8.60 -36.50 32.70 7.83 11.26 -34.80 48.60 18112 30

745 -3.43 8.44 -37.10 32.40 7.36 10.96 -34.10 47.50 18112 30

761 -3.22 8.28 -36.90 32.70 6.86 10.71 -34.50 44.40 18112 30

777 -3.04 8.07 -36.70 33.50 6.37 10.53 -35.10 45.50 18112 30

793 -2.92 7.75 -35.40 30.50 5.96 10.24 -34.20 47.20 18112 30

809 -2.74 7.54 -34.80 29.60 5.46 9.88 -34.90 45.90 18112 30

825 -2.48 7.34 -35.40 28.60 4.98 9.61 -35.30 39.80 18112 30

841 -2.25 7.18 -34.90 30.10 4.61 9.41 -33.30 40.30 18112 30

857 -2.10 7.08 -34.70 31.40 4.22 9.23 -31.40 39.20 18112 30

873 -1.91 6.99 -34.40 32.40 3.84 9.00 -26.70 39.10 18112 30

889 -1.70 6.84 -34.20 32.10 3.48 8.73 -27.70 42.70 18112 30

905 -1.53 6.67 -32.70 29.40 3.15 8.45 -25.10 42.00 18112 30

921 -1.31 6.51 -30.60 27.50 2.88 8.17 -25.30 36.50 18112 30

937 -1.14 6.33 -29.40 25.70 2.56 7.81 -24.40 36.20 18112 30

953 -1.04 6.03 -29.50 24.20 2.11 7.27 -23.10 46.50 18112 30

969 -0.73 5.38 -28.80 23.40 1.55 6.09 -20.10 30.60 18112 30

1245 0.46 4.49 -13.62 20.39 -1.26 5.57 -21.67 17.61 9049 60

1499 0.68 3.37 -10.83 15.42 -1.43 5.14 -25.41 20.70 9051 60

1990 1.35 3.06 -15.19 18.77 -1.41 4.48 -22.12 13.64 9053 60
145

Table A- 20. Basic statistics for Mooring PE5 during Canek 20

depth mean_

u

std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

59 -0.40 31.45 -113.90 111.70 29.16 44.92 -119.90 162.00 15681 30

75 0.90 32.14 -107.10 111.30 30.94 45.77 -112.80 150.90 15681 30

91 0.34 30.13 -88.20 101.20 29.04 42.25 -106.10 135.50 15681 30

107 -0.19 28.35 -74.20 98.50 27.27 39.04 -93.70 126.20 15681 30

123 -0.59 26.66 -67.80 92.10 25.62 35.99 -87.80 116.80 15681 30

139 -0.55 25.42 -61.80 89.60 24.35 33.42 -80.90 105.40 15681 30

155 -0.39 24.05 -55.50 84.90 23.04 31.30 -75.60 103.60 15681 30

171 0.05 22.62 -61.50 81.90 21.79 29.67 -72.90 104.00 15681 30

187 0.48 21.54 -53.40 79.90 20.68 28.61 -73.80 100.00 15681 30

203 0.61 20.80 -46.10 79.10 19.95 27.61 -75.80 99.20 15681 30

219 0.71 20.11 -49.30 78.70 19.23 26.60 -73.20 102.00 15681 30

235 0.81 19.47 -49.30 72.00 18.54 25.84 -73.40 96.30 15681 30

251 0.79 18.97 -48.10 67.70 17.77 25.15 -74.40 96.90 15681 30

267 0.88 18.54 -51.80 64.60 17.06 24.41 -72.60 91.70 15681 30

283 0.88 18.09 -54.90 65.30 16.51 23.64 -72.40 90.00 15681 30

299 0.77 17.66 -52.30 67.60 15.99 22.99 -74.20 89.20 15681 30

315 0.58 17.28 -52.70 71.10 15.44 22.42 -73.10 87.00 15681 30

331 0.36 16.82 -50.50 67.70 14.90 21.80 -69.90 82.60 15681 30

347 0.28 16.39 -49.80 62.80 14.36 21.13 -70.90 81.00 15681 30

363 0.22 16.09 -45.30 64.70 13.86 20.55 -68.00 76.40 15681 30

379 0.02 15.85 -43.30 64.90 13.32 20.02 -64.50 74.00 15681 30

395 -0.19 15.56 -46.00 62.90 12.79 19.50 -64.50 71.10 15681 30

411 -0.36 15.21 -42.50 59.80 12.28 18.89 -67.40 71.70 15681 30

427 -0.48 14.89 -41.50 56.80 11.85 18.31 -66.00 68.30 15681 30

443 -0.57 14.65 -45.50 55.10 11.44 17.91 -61.60 66.30 15681 30

459 -0.69 14.47 -42.70 57.50 10.91 17.59 -59.90 62.90 15681 30

475 -0.82 14.34 -45.40 53.40 10.39 17.06 -56.60 61.50 15681 30

482 -0.21 14.08 -54.10 56.40 10.38 16.75 -55.98 63.60 15679 30

491 -0.96 14.14 -44.90 51.20 9.91 16.67 -60.60 60.90 15681 30

498 -0.30 13.97 -47.10 50.70 9.98 16.44 -56.60 57.80 15679 30

507 -1.04 13.91 -45.50 49.20 9.40 16.23 -59.00 56.60 15681 30

514 -0.41 13.87 -43.90 49.60 9.51 16.20 -56.30 60.60 15679 30

523 -1.08 13.54 -44.60 44.90 8.85 15.73 -54.50 55.30 15681 30

530 -0.49 13.77 -45.30 45.10 9.24 16.01 -54.60 54.90 15679 30

546 -0.52 13.61 -45.30 44.20 8.89 15.70 -58.20 51.80 15679 30

562 -0.50 13.43 -50.20 44.90 8.45 15.33 -57.00 51.00 15679 30

578 -0.56 13.16 -51.70 43.50 8.10 14.97 -56.80 48.10 15679 30
146

Table A- 20. Basic statistics for Mooring PE5 during Canek 20 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

594 -0.73 12.97 -48.40 39.40 7.81 14.60 -56.70 51.90 15679 30

610 -0.82 12.88 -47.60 37.50 7.58 14.26 -58.30 54.00 15679 30

626 -0.82 12.82 -52.00 36.60 7.39 13.87 -57.40 55.60 15679 30

642 -0.87 12.75 -51.60 38.70 7.21 13.47 -56.40 55.80 15679 30

658 -0.94 12.53 -51.00 38.30 7.11 13.11 -55.40 54.20 15679 30

674 -0.98 12.35 -49.70 37.00 6.83 12.77 -53.60 51.30 15679 30

690 -1.08 12.21 -49.60 36.60 6.52 12.50 -49.50 49.70 15679 30

706 -1.11 12.02 -46.70 36.50 6.27 12.23 -50.90 49.10 15679 30

722 -1.14 11.81 -44.00 34.90 5.99 11.83 -45.60 46.00 15679 30

738 -1.12 11.41 -41.70 36.60 5.72 11.48 -46.50 45.20 15679 30

754 -1.14 11.10 -41.70 37.80 5.47 11.10 -42.20 48.60 15679 30

770 -1.12 10.84 -43.70 38.10 5.17 10.76 -40.90 46.20 15679 30

786 -1.15 10.54 -42.50 39.10 4.94 10.50 -39.10 46.20 15679 30

802 -1.24 10.17 -39.10 34.70 4.76 10.20 -36.20 40.40 15679 30

818 -1.21 9.84 -35.90 33.80 4.55 9.94 -35.10 40.90 15679 30

834 -1.17 9.49 -38.70 32.40 4.27 9.72 -34.10 42.00 15679 30

850 -1.23 9.21 -36.60 30.30 3.93 9.41 -30.70 38.30 15679 30

866 -1.33 9.06 -33.70 30.00 3.65 9.15 -31.80 38.00 15679 30

882 -1.35 8.90 -34.90 29.00 3.35 8.94 -34.80 37.50 15679 30

898 -1.31 8.63 -34.00 31.70 3.08 8.67 -31.90 35.50 15679 30

914 -1.28 8.40 -32.60 29.10 2.90 8.43 -29.40 33.60 15679 30

930 -1.21 8.18 -31.20 28.00 2.72 8.18 -27.30 34.50 15679 30

946 -1.30 7.96 -30.40 27.20 2.44 7.96 -29.60 33.90 15679 30

962 -1.37 7.75 -31.30 26.60 2.18 7.79 -27.80 33.50 15679 30

978 -1.38 7.48 -28.10 27.90 1.86 7.58 -28.10 33.90 15679 30

994 -1.40 7.20 -27.90 27.00 1.59 7.41 -29.40 33.60 15679 30

1010 -1.38 6.83 -26.50 29.20 1.37 7.05 -23.40 30.50 15679 30

1026 -1.32 6.46 -25.20 23.90 1.05 6.67 -28.60 33.00 15679 30

1209 -1.41 5.58 -22.70 17.80 0.28 5.01 -19.80 19.60 31358 15

1465 -0.92 4.95 -20.20 15.90 -0.30 4.16 -15.80 15.80 31359 15

1751 -1.19 5.12 -15.60 15.90 -0.13 4.11 -13.90 16.80 31359 15

2259 -2.06 5.42 -19.20 15.30 0.02 4.82 -19.50 18.30 31360 15

2767 -2.18 5.43 -18.80 13.00 0.02 5.12 -21.50 17.90 31359 15

3288 -1.90 5.03 -20.80 15.70 -0.17 4.81 -16.70 18.40 31361 45
147

Table A- 21. Basic statistics for Mooring PE5 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

59 11.71 33.70 -122.30 134.90 34.12 49.54 -96.10 178.60 18175 30

75 11.09 32.14 -107.50 133.40 32.17 45.91 -88.80 213.70 18175 30

91 10.41 30.03 -105.50 118.00 30.34 41.90 -84.60 218.70 18175 30

107 9.66 27.96 -109.80 106.60 28.48 38.35 -82.00 193.20 18175 30

123 8.89 26.23 -101.00 98.10 26.73 35.64 -80.60 214.00 18175 30

139 8.33 24.70 -112.70 88.70 25.11 33.50 -77.60 199.70 18175 30

155 7.77 23.53 -119.10 83.80 23.62 31.76 -75.10 224.10 18175 30

171 7.34 22.54 -113.30 75.80 22.28 30.29 -66.80 232.90 18175 30

187 7.31 21.77 -120.10 73.30 21.08 29.00 -60.40 224.90 18175 30

203 7.29 20.89 -136.70 66.60 20.07 28.04 -60.10 224.70 18175 30

219 7.19 20.10 -146.70 69.20 19.25 27.07 -56.20 224.10 18175 30

235 7.21 19.47 -120.40 68.10 18.50 26.12 -56.40 206.10 18175 30

251 7.09 18.98 -119.30 63.00 17.69 25.29 -54.00 222.00 18175 30

267 6.96 18.34 -109.80 58.70 16.98 24.60 -55.40 242.60 18175 30

283 6.82 17.71 -92.20 61.60 16.31 24.02 -56.00 236.60 18175 30

299 6.64 17.15 -94.10 59.20 15.86 23.34 -59.90 178.10 18175 30

315 6.31 16.73 -79.80 56.90 15.48 22.74 -51.60 170.30 18175 30

331 6.00 16.30 -68.60 54.50 15.06 22.14 -48.10 171.50 18175 30

347 5.71 15.77 -63.80 52.50 14.63 21.47 -49.60 172.60 18175 30

363 5.40 15.25 -63.60 55.00 14.23 20.85 -47.90 161.20 18175 30

379 5.04 14.80 -65.10 57.70 13.86 20.36 -43.90 102.00 18175 30

395 4.81 14.38 -63.30 59.40 13.38 19.88 -39.20 107.50 18175 30

402 5.62 14.71 -83.40 62.80 12.49 19.90 -37.50 253.60 18176 30

411 4.59 14.04 -64.80 58.50 12.90 19.39 -35.90 75.80 18175 30

418 5.40 14.34 -73.00 61.70 12.04 19.34 -34.10 252.70 18176 30

427 4.43 13.76 -64.40 55.80 12.47 18.94 -34.40 73.70 18175 30

434 5.11 13.94 -72.50 57.40 11.61 18.78 -40.10 227.60 18176 30

443 4.22 13.36 -64.70 52.90 12.06 18.43 -39.90 72.90 18175 30

450 4.86 13.61 -70.10 54.00 11.22 18.25 -38.60 211.40 18176 30

459 3.95 12.93 -64.60 51.00 11.41 17.78 -37.60 68.70 18175 30

466 4.66 13.29 -69.20 53.30 10.85 17.79 -35.70 164.00 18176 30

482 4.43 12.94 -65.90 53.90 10.46 17.33 -32.10 147.50 18176 30

498 4.28 12.66 -66.20 53.30 10.15 16.92 -29.40 145.80 18176 30

514 4.20 12.42 -63.00 51.60 9.81 16.54 -29.70 140.10 18176 30

530 3.97 12.16 -63.60 49.70 9.54 16.20 -29.30 151.90 18176 30

546 3.71 11.85 -64.30 48.90 9.29 15.85 -26.90 135.90 18176 30

562 3.48 11.55 -65.90 49.30 9.06 15.45 -25.70 129.20 18176 30
148

Table A-21. Basic statistics for Mooring PE5 during Canek 23 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

578 3.29 11.30 -71.10 51.40 8.77 15.11 -27.80 123.00 18176 30

594 3.14 11.06 -58.90 50.60 8.47 14.73 -28.60 149.30 18176 30

610 2.93 10.81 -65.20 47.90 8.22 14.32 -26.10 139.70 18176 30

626 2.69 10.60 -59.10 46.50 8.03 13.96 -27.50 152.00 18176 30

642 2.50 10.32 -54.60 47.00 7.76 13.52 -24.60 117.50 18176 30

658 2.34 10.07 -52.40 44.20 7.53 13.12 -23.90 111.10 18176 30

674 2.19 9.80 -60.50 44.00 7.27 12.72 -24.90 139.30 18176 30

690 2.00 9.51 -58.10 40.50 7.07 12.28 -23.70 135.90 18176 30

706 1.71 9.24 -57.30 40.20 6.77 11.88 -23.70 111.80 18176 30

722 1.51 8.99 -41.80 38.20 6.50 11.49 -23.90 106.50 18176 30

738 1.38 8.71 -35.60 37.40 6.23 11.12 -23.70 99.10 18176 30

754 1.25 8.50 -33.60 36.70 5.93 10.80 -25.30 73.10 18176 30

770 1.09 8.33 -33.30 36.90 5.69 10.48 -24.60 72.10 18176 30

786 0.91 8.13 -28.60 35.90 5.43 10.18 -23.10 59.10 18176 30

802 0.80 7.94 -29.40 32.90 5.15 9.89 -22.80 47.20 18176 30

818 0.69 7.79 -30.70 32.60 4.85 9.62 -22.60 47.10 18176 30

834 0.59 7.63 -28.10 32.80 4.71 9.48 -19.70 45.60 18176 30

850 0.54 7.44 -26.70 32.10 4.58 9.26 -19.80 40.70 18176 30

866 0.43 7.31 -27.50 30.60 4.42 9.07 -20.60 44.20 18176 30

882 0.36 7.15 -26.20 28.20 4.15 8.74 -19.70 42.30 18176 30

898 0.32 6.82 -22.90 26.90 3.86 8.28 -20.70 39.50 18176 30

914 0.26 6.49 -24.00 25.90 3.62 7.83 -19.00 43.80 18176 30

930 0.14 6.01 -24.00 24.30 3.22 7.22 -17.70 49.40 18176 30

946 0.11 4.90 -21.60 23.30 2.50 6.08 -15.70 51.90 18176 30

1161 -0.52 5.07 -21.98 22.30 1.00 5.40 -16.31 34.96 9085 60

1416 -0.79 4.17 -13.82 15.21 -0.16 3.73 -12.67 13.34 9083 60

1772 -1.35 4.73 -16.69 11.97 -0.31 4.39 -14.25 16.25 9085 60

2279 -2.65 6.60 -21.70 16.50 -0.54 6.01 -19.90 19.10 36351 15

2835 -3.03 6.14 -19.25 15.49 -0.68 5.74 -25.33 17.22 9085 60

3446 -3.15 6.99 -29.40 21.80 -0.64 6.02 -27.50 18.50 36348 15
149

Table A- 22. Basic statistics for Mooring PEN during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

55 -33.14 44.20 -145.90 75.10 44.22 73.87 -90.10 211.40 15753 30

71 -30.39 41.50 -131.80 81.40 40.35 69.40 -80.20 197.60 15753 30

87 -27.46 38.74 -115.90 83.00 36.28 64.15 -83.10 176.60 15753 30

103 -24.42 36.06 -107.40 79.40 32.40 58.64 -89.20 157.60 15753 30

119 -21.70 33.54 -101.50 84.90 28.85 53.95 -92.40 139.80 15753 30

135 -19.35 31.23 -103.20 85.90 25.95 50.07 -94.70 141.80 15753 30

151 -17.34 29.34 -96.70 91.60 23.71 46.71 -94.10 133.50 15753 30

167 -15.73 27.75 -95.60 89.80 21.93 44.03 -97.70 133.10 15753 30

183 -14.52 26.24 -93.90 88.10 20.53 41.77 -99.70 130.30 15753 30

199 -13.48 24.85 -94.70 88.70 19.26 39.53 -97.10 119.00 15753 30

215 -12.49 23.48 -86.30 84.20 18.17 37.42 -84.10 109.30 15753 30

231 -11.62 22.23 -79.90 77.00 16.95 35.53 -75.80 100.90 15753 30

247 -10.82 21.25 -78.30 68.00 15.78 33.64 -72.20 100.80 15753 30

263 -10.06 20.35 -73.60 61.00 14.75 31.84 -72.10 101.30 15753 30

279 -9.23 19.46 -71.40 58.00 13.68 30.15 -73.00 100.50 15753 30

295 -8.40 18.43 -62.10 54.20 12.82 28.68 -75.00 90.40 15753 30

311 -7.50 17.46 -59.60 52.70 11.80 27.15 -78.40 84.70 15753 30

327 -6.56 16.59 -56.60 53.60 10.56 25.67 -76.00 86.50 15753 30

343 -5.69 15.80 -54.20 54.50 9.43 24.45 -65.60 75.40 15753 30

359 -4.87 15.09 -54.60 49.70 8.36 23.30 -67.40 72.80 15753 30

375 -4.15 14.44 -49.60 44.40 7.22 22.35 -59.00 71.50 15753 30

391 -3.45 13.76 -47.00 44.20 6.16 21.44 -54.80 72.40 15753 30

407 -2.66 13.33 -50.70 43.10 5.15 20.59 -50.80 77.00 15753 30

423 -1.83 13.21 -49.50 44.50 4.12 19.69 -51.80 71.80 15753 30

439 -0.96 13.17 -51.30 42.30 3.04 18.98 -51.00 68.60 15753 30

455 -0.10 13.00 -45.90 42.80 2.16 18.07 -46.80 67.30 15753 30

471 0.91 12.33 -50.70 40.30 1.12 16.43 -46.20 60.30 15753 30
150

Table A- 23. Basic statistics for Mooring PEN during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

52 -20.34 32.79 -109.10 39.80 6.75 53.23 -68.40 177.40 6066 30

68 -18.37 32.66 -96.40 41.50 7.09 52.37 -69.30 165.70 6066 30

84 -15.99 31.63 -99.40 41.00 6.47 50.23 -68.80 153.50 6066 30

100 -13.81 30.51 -91.10 48.70 5.80 48.00 -67.80 145.10 6066 30

116 -11.59 28.65 -83.00 56.20 4.91 45.46 -66.30 130.20 6066 30

132 -9.68 26.45 -79.60 54.50 3.92 42.56 -65.20 120.00 6066 30

148 -8.16 24.89 -75.00 47.60 2.98 39.85 -67.40 107.00 6066 30

164 -6.90 23.94 -67.30 49.40 2.43 38.02 -67.70 100.90 6066 30

180 -5.72 22.75 -58.80 47.70 2.10 36.33 -61.40 100.80 6066 30

196 -4.83 21.65 -55.90 47.40 1.64 34.45 -56.40 103.60 6066 30

212 -4.33 20.80 -54.30 49.00 1.18 32.67 -55.20 93.10 6066 30

228 -3.70 19.74 -53.80 52.70 1.04 31.09 -50.30 82.40 6066 30

244 -2.95 18.59 -58.10 52.50 1.09 29.80 -49.50 79.20 6066 30

260 -2.46 17.42 -53.80 52.60 0.97 28.71 -53.70 77.10 6066 30

276 -2.20 16.87 -52.50 54.30 0.88 27.63 -53.90 75.10 6066 30

292 -2.06 16.30 -49.80 52.20 0.90 26.75 -56.10 74.30 6066 30

308 -1.89 15.40 -51.50 49.80 0.84 26.21 -58.60 73.60 6066 30

324 -1.68 14.50 -56.50 46.20 0.62 25.43 -57.10 68.00 6066 30

340 -1.47 13.60 -47.50 40.70 0.34 24.34 -56.40 65.70 6066 30

356 -1.30 12.92 -46.10 34.30 0.04 23.70 -54.10 66.40 6066 30

372 -0.81 12.47 -38.30 33.20 -0.12 23.13 -51.30 66.70 6066 30

388 -0.33 12.20 -35.30 37.80 -0.45 22.69 -49.30 64.60 6066 30

404 0.19 11.98 -38.20 35.00 -0.97 22.40 -50.30 60.40 6066 30

420 0.74 11.83 -39.50 33.40 -1.66 22.01 -51.10 56.00 6066 30

436 1.53 11.82 -39.70 41.40 -2.66 21.52 -52.70 55.60 6066 30

452 2.67 11.99 -38.70 44.90 -3.61 20.50 -51.80 51.50 6066 30

468 4.04 11.71 -38.30 39.70 -4.35 18.39 -44.20 50.20 6066 30
151

Table A- 24. Basic statistics for Mooring PN1 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

obs

Sample 

interval

38 -0.08 38.72 -148.00 86.50 -2.72 25.81 -69.30 101.00 15280 30

46 0.29 38.04 -145.60 67.70 -3.10 25.42 -62.30 101.00 15280 30

54 1.39 37.58 -144.20 76.50 -3.57 25.12 -55.50 100.40 15280 30

62 3.04 37.18 -133.00 83.10 -3.76 24.85 -59.00 102.30 15280 30

70 5.13 36.68 -128.50 93.00 -3.54 24.34 -62.30 102.50 15280 30

78 7.25 35.47 -117.10 100.50 -3.60 23.92 -58.20 106.70 15280 30

86 9.20 32.90 -103.10 105.80 -3.93 23.44 -60.20 103.10 15280 30

94 10.53 29.35 -87.20 101.40 -4.03 22.67 -60.20 100.60 15280 30

102 10.93 25.34 -79.90 82.40 -3.39 21.34 -53.10 101.60 15280 30

110 10.68 21.36 -56.60 71.10 -2.29 19.46 -47.50 93.10 15280 30

124 6.63 13.93 -34.88 49.14 0.14 14.23 -30.81 51.52 3820 120

Table A- 25. Basic statistics for Mooring PN1 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

14 -6.91 31.76 -168.38 75.17 4.05 27.61 -109.25 158.93 8905 60

22 -7.40 32.23 -134.83 70.90 3.01 28.05 -62.00 140.23 8905 60

30 -7.03 31.07 -129.30 63.75 2.02 27.12 -56.65 122.85 8905 60

38 -6.06 29.77 -124.63 59.43 1.31 26.27 -56.10 117.83 8905 60

46 -4.88 28.82 -120.78 62.43 0.75 25.29 -55.35 117.50 8905 60

54 -3.55 28.35 -120.65 66.00 0.18 24.25 -54.40 113.43 8905 60

62 -1.87 27.91 -119.45 70.63 -0.51 22.99 -50.45 104.80 8905 60

70 0.19 26.97 -112.50 66.85 -1.12 21.82 -51.35 88.95 8905 60

78 2.03 25.58 -99.90 62.53 -1.69 20.62 -49.55 86.33 8905 60

86 3.53 23.70 -91.33 61.83 -2.02 19.62 -48.45 87.48 8905 60

94 4.91 21.43 -87.70 59.73 -2.01 18.82 -49.08 82.33 8905 60

102 6.02 19.21 -82.23 53.30 -1.63 17.81 -48.23 76.53 8905 60

110 6.74 17.32 -69.43 55.45 -1.24 16.74 -42.88 71.40 8905 60

124 3.84 11.25 -31.04 38.10 0.38 11.91 -27.55 53.08 4652 120
152

Table A- 26. Basic statistics for Mooring PN2 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

53 -24.10 51.31 -177.80 79.30 30.94 63.98 -111.20 190.20 15267 30

69 -24.21 51.00 -167.80 73.40 28.23 60.31 -107.70 178.00 15267 30

85 -22.57 48.81 -157.20 66.40 25.42 55.75 -98.90 156.30 15267 30

101 -20.66 46.14 -138.90 60.40 22.98 51.03 -86.30 141.90 15267 30

117 -18.75 43.20 -127.00 57.10 20.94 46.63 -73.50 132.90 15267 30

133 -16.67 40.19 -114.90 64.20 19.02 42.91 -75.60 128.50 15267 30

149 -14.58 37.58 -111.30 69.10 17.28 39.49 -62.30 123.90 15267 30

165 -12.90 35.59 -103.30 71.50 15.80 36.85 -56.50 108.60 15267 30

181 -11.24 33.72 -106.90 75.20 14.26 34.40 -55.50 100.50 15267 30

197 -9.57 31.53 -99.80 72.60 12.66 31.62 -50.50 96.00 15267 30

213 -8.12 29.61 -91.40 67.10 11.23 29.02 -47.70 90.30 15267 30

229 -6.79 28.28 -95.70 69.50 9.96 27.15 -42.90 90.10 15267 30

245 -5.66 27.61 -93.70 67.60 8.60 26.03 -42.20 85.70 15267 30

261 -4.53 26.89 -88.60 76.00 7.31 25.15 -45.20 84.80 15267 30

277 -3.18 25.77 -86.60 76.50 5.99 23.72 -48.30 84.80 15267 30

293 -1.76 24.73 -82.20 76.90 4.59 22.17 -48.40 81.40 15267 30

309 -0.41 23.83 -79.40 75.10 3.17 20.94 -48.50 75.80 15267 30

325 0.72 23.05 -78.00 71.20 1.93 19.96 -49.00 71.60 15267 30

341 1.79 22.45 -72.20 74.90 0.87 19.04 -46.20 67.60 15267 30

357 2.67 21.75 -62.90 75.30 -0.17 18.26 -47.10 62.70 15267 30

373 3.31 20.97 -60.70 74.20 -1.05 17.48 -50.60 60.50 15267 30

389 3.69 20.00 -60.20 77.70 -1.72 16.84 -50.20 62.90 15267 30

405 3.85 19.06 -61.50 76.80 -2.18 16.19 -49.90 63.00 15267 30

421 3.71 18.32 -60.30 70.40 -2.34 15.57 -49.40 56.30 15267 30

437 3.47 17.41 -58.90 72.20 -2.13 14.97 -51.20 47.80 15267 30

453 3.40 15.95 -55.30 70.20 -1.82 14.12 -48.50 46.10 15267 30

469 3.12 14.30 -45.80 71.00 -1.47 12.56 -46.60 39.10 15267 30
153

Table A- 27. Basic statistics for Mooring PN2 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample

interval

48 -37.43 27.80 -126.30 37.00 25.00 43.91 -79.20 147.10 18614 30

64 -43.17 35.20 -150.10 49.90 31.67 57.53 -97.40 178.30 18614 30

80 -40.91 34.58 -142.00 49.20 28.95 54.77 -98.90 157.20 18614 30

96 -38.40 34.08 -130.90 45.00 26.91 51.61 -83.40 149.70 18614 30

112 -35.37 32.99 -119.90 44.50 25.42 48.27 -79.10 151.20 18614 30

128 -32.08 31.56 -111.10 38.10 24.06 44.91 -69.90 138.90 18614 30

144 -29.02 30.12 -107.60 37.30 22.68 41.74 -62.40 125.60 18614 30

160 -26.57 29.08 -108.70 38.60 21.31 38.81 -59.60 127.10 18614 30

176 -24.48 28.23 -97.60 39.60 20.10 36.46 -59.00 128.40 18614 30

192 -22.57 27.48 -99.10 37.20 19.18 34.69 -56.80 122.00 18614 30

208 -20.55 26.62 -97.30 38.30 18.30 33.13 -53.70 116.60 18614 30

224 -18.67 25.64 -91.90 39.80 17.18 31.48 -52.00 113.60 18614 30

240 -16.80 24.67 -93.60 41.00 15.99 29.71 -48.30 110.40 18614 30

256 -15.11 23.71 -93.10 42.30 14.94 28.13 -43.50 106.60 18614 30

272 -13.57 23.07 -96.60 40.50 13.94 26.93 -44.00 101.00 18614 30

288 -11.93 22.44 -92.00 41.80 12.87 25.63 -45.10 96.80 18614 30

304 -10.32 21.81 -92.10 41.00 11.47 24.04 -45.90 90.00 18614 30

320 -9.00 21.28 -92.30 46.00 10.01 22.56 -50.60 81.30 18614 30

336 -7.75 20.67 -82.40 43.70 8.75 21.34 -49.90 77.60 18614 30

352 -6.69 20.04 -73.50 45.90 7.57 20.31 -48.30 79.10 18614 30

368 -5.76 19.47 -66.30 47.80 6.40 19.58 -51.60 75.40 18614 30

384 -4.90 18.98 -59.50 50.70 5.38 19.05 -53.30 63.90 18614 30

400 -4.06 18.48 -60.90 49.60 4.27 18.60 -54.60 62.00 18614 30

416 -3.29 17.99 -57.90 47.90 3.31 18.04 -52.40 56.90 18614 30

432 -2.53 17.37 -60.40 50.30 2.45 17.53 -50.40 51.70 18614 30

448 -1.49 16.30 -50.10 52.10 1.69 16.81 -47.70 53.90 18614 30

464 -0.43 14.90 -46.10 48.90 1.06 15.46 -43.80 51.80 18614 30

480 0.44 13.12 -41.60 43.50 0.36 13.27 -38.70 49.60 18614 30
154

Table A- 28. Basic statistics for Mooring PN3 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

51 -19.99 40.81 -157.80 87.00 34.54 63.69 -116.70 197.90 15243 30

67 -22.15 43.10 -144.80 87.20 39.40 68.35 -122.00 191.70 15243 30

83 -21.87 42.08 -144.60 70.00 37.71 65.43 -118.40 174.10 15243 30

99 -21.28 41.06 -140.20 57.50 35.78 62.10 -102.50 166.80 15243 30

115 -20.26 39.75 -132.80 56.70 33.81 58.43 -95.00 159.70 15243 30

131 -19.05 37.98 -126.00 61.00 31.84 54.87 -90.40 154.60 15243 30

147 -17.64 36.33 -119.50 60.20 30.02 51.68 -83.30 150.40 15243 30

163 -16.28 34.55 -112.80 50.00 28.56 49.02 -72.90 143.10 15243 30

179 -15.16 33.07 -105.90 53.60 27.40 46.74 -70.30 132.50 15243 30

195 -14.31 31.96 -99.40 53.20 26.27 44.98 -72.90 136.20 15243 30

211 -13.47 31.03 -100.00 60.70 25.21 43.12 -68.20 134.50 15243 30

227 -12.63 30.04 -92.70 60.70 24.22 41.47 -63.40 125.50 15243 30

243 -11.84 28.96 -86.40 64.80 23.13 39.93 -64.50 122.40 15243 30

259 -11.24 28.16 -83.90 66.10 22.10 38.50 -60.70 116.50 15243 30

275 -10.79 27.58 -82.40 65.00 21.30 37.15 -58.00 107.60 15243 30

291 -10.21 26.91 -77.40 64.90 20.43 35.81 -56.30 103.20 15243 30

307 -9.59 26.23 -74.40 63.70 19.42 34.47 -51.40 100.90 15243 30

323 -9.07 25.63 -71.50 64.80 18.50 33.25 -52.20 98.80 15243 30

339 -8.47 25.13 -72.80 62.30 17.69 32.03 -49.50 98.80 15243 30

355 -7.96 24.67 -72.70 63.90 16.81 30.86 -51.60 97.20 15243 30

371 -7.39 24.08 -68.00 61.60 15.95 29.81 -49.10 94.20 15243 30

387 -6.82 23.45 -62.10 63.10 15.13 28.74 -43.50 95.10 15243 30

403 -6.33 22.99 -60.60 55.70 14.42 27.75 -39.00 95.20 15243 30

419 -5.76 22.56 -61.40 53.50 13.67 26.88 -39.00 90.90 15243 30

435 -5.35 22.20 -62.30 56.90 12.92 26.07 -39.60 88.00 15243 30

451 -4.83 21.74 -61.20 55.30 12.22 25.17 -38.70 83.00 15243 30

467 -4.42 21.24 -62.10 54.00 11.49 24.26 -35.90 86.50 15243 30

483 -4.06 20.51 -61.50 49.00 10.59 23.06 -33.50 82.70 15243 30

994 2.63 8.08 -24.90 29.30 -1.15 5.86 -28.50 23.50 30482 15

1190 1.58 6.48 -25.70 21.50 -0.59 4.46 -18.10 20.20 30483 15
155

Table A- 29. Basic statistics for Mooring PN3 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

45 -40.58 27.98 -145.30 138.70 28.34 53.07 -131.60 178.50 18613 30

61 -36.20 29.21 -122.50 48.80 23.52 53.22 -103.30 174.70 18613 30

77 -39.34 33.66 -145.90 55.10 30.19 62.52 -108.50 174.80 18613 30

93 -37.98 32.33 -132.30 45.50 28.64 58.81 -92.00 160.90 18613 30

109 -36.13 31.01 -128.70 44.70 27.30 54.98 -82.90 155.20 18613 30

125 -33.87 29.65 -123.20 39.10 26.12 51.49 -76.20 151.00 18613 30

141 -31.34 28.02 -119.30 37.50 24.68 47.87 -71.20 146.90 18613 30

157 -29.13 26.82 -112.20 33.30 23.54 44.70 -67.20 137.80 18613 30

173 -27.10 25.90 -111.50 37.10 22.50 41.87 -68.10 126.70 18613 30

189 -25.36 24.96 -104.40 35.00 21.76 39.79 -63.80 119.90 18613 30

205 -23.75 24.13 -99.90 35.00 20.88 37.81 -57.30 118.50 18613 30

221 -22.62 23.57 -99.60 38.40 20.13 36.12 -50.60 114.50 18613 30

237 -21.46 23.01 -96.50 39.30 19.42 34.65 -49.00 112.40 18613 30

253 -20.31 22.41 -93.00 36.10 18.80 33.43 -46.30 104.90 18613 30

269 -19.40 21.87 -90.40 37.10 18.27 32.40 -43.60 98.00 18613 30

285 -18.56 21.48 -85.00 36.50 17.87 31.40 -42.00 95.90 18613 30

301 -17.80 21.05 -82.30 36.70 17.40 30.38 -39.50 96.90 18613 30

317 -17.17 20.65 -83.40 42.30 16.92 29.38 -43.30 92.20 18613 30

333 -16.44 20.31 -77.80 44.70 16.43 28.52 -39.50 88.00 18613 30

349 -15.69 20.01 -73.40 46.60 15.97 27.68 -41.80 89.60 18613 30

365 -14.97 19.62 -70.70 45.90 15.49 26.95 -42.40 86.50 18613 30

381 -14.35 19.28 -70.20 48.30 15.02 26.18 -44.20 81.90 18613 30

397 -13.84 18.94 -66.00 46.90 14.57 25.39 -42.20 81.60 18613 30

413 -13.34 18.67 -65.00 48.10 14.24 24.70 -42.30 82.00 18613 30

429 -12.80 18.44 -65.30 48.20 13.93 24.16 -43.70 85.30 18613 30

445 -12.31 18.15 -62.00 46.50 13.60 23.67 -44.80 87.60 18613 30

461 -11.85 17.88 -59.40 41.80 13.24 23.12 -43.10 86.50 18613 30

477 -11.35 17.54 -56.30 38.70 12.87 22.51 -43.10 82.70 18613 30

493 -10.74 17.01 -52.80 40.70 12.41 21.80 -43.60 73.90 18613 30

995 1.93 7.08 -25.50 26.00 -0.85 5.51 -22.10 24.20 37217 15

1190 1.49 5.65 -23.40 18.56 -0.22 4.86 -20.86 18.31 18612 30
156

Table A- 30. Basic statistics for Mooring PN4 during Canek 20

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

94 -20.88 7.19 -44.50 -2.80 50.36 13.60 16.10 79.7 769 30

110 -20.93 6.94 -41.40 0.50 50.75 13.62 14.60 79.4 769 30

126 -20.56 8.39 -42.60 7.40 50.58 13.53 10.50 79.2 769 30

142 -20.09 10.25 -45.10 17.40 48.89 13.59 10.60 81 769 30

158 -19.71 10.03 -46.20 15.40 47.29 13.71 10.80 81.4 769 30

174 -20.02 9.70 -52.60 12.30 45.36 13.84 14.40 87.6 769 30

190 -18.58 9.21 -53.50 4.10 43.15 12.76 13.00 84.3 769 30

206 -16.96 8.26 -48.50 5.10 40.30 11.23 11.90 79.5 769 30

222 -16.94 8.48 -45.30 3.30 37.56 10.09 10.50 65.9 769 30

238 -16.74 8.20 -43.00 2.80 34.67 9.25 5.90 54.7 769 30

254 -15.49 8.00 -35.80 6.30 33.03 8.40 8.20 54.4 769 30

270 -14.58 7.93 -37.30 8.00 30.81 7.65 13.30 51.8 769 30

286 -13.58 7.73 -33.80 6.80 29.72 6.64 13.10 47.5 769 30

302 -13.47 7.52 -30.80 7.30 28.41 6.51 10.00 46.6 769 30

318 -13.44 7.43 -31.00 7.90 27.90 7.16 5.60 47.7 769 30

334 -13.25 7.41 -31.50 9.50 27.31 6.59 7.20 45.3 769 30

350 -12.81 6.81 -30.10 7.00 26.04 6.50 7.90 44.6 769 30

366 -12.37 6.55 -32.40 7.90 25.27 6.76 4.30 45.9 769 30

382 -12.40 6.31 -28.50 9.00 24.59 6.52 -1.60 43.4 769 30

398 -12.74 6.36 -30.00 4.60 24.29 6.46 -2.40 40 769 30

414 -12.21 5.81 -30.30 3.50 23.75 6.37 2.80 39 769 30

430 -11.75 5.71 -33.90 4.60 22.99 6.36 3.70 40.6 769 30

446 -11.68 5.52 -30.30 3.30 22.41 6.19 3.10 37 769 30

462 -11.62 5.63 -28.60 2.40 21.91 6.06 1.50 36.1 769 30

478 -11.57 5.83 -27.80 4.40 21.06 6.44 -2.40 38.2 769 30

494 -11.63 6.19 -27.80 6.50 20.51 6.58 -0.30 41 769 30

510 -11.55 6.25 -30.60 8.40 19.70 6.32 -3.60 38.7 769 30

517 -11.70 4.45 -51.40 34.50 11.14 19.30 -33.10 76.3 15187 30

533 -11.50 4.29 -51.60 32.50 10.91 18.96 -34.30 80.2 15187 30

549 -11.26 4.11 -50.00 33.70 10.69 18.64 -32.50 78.1 15187 30

565 -11.08 3.95 -45.30 32.70 10.50 18.27 -33.20 80 15187 30

581 -11.01 3.82 -45.80 34.70 10.23 17.89 -36.00 75.4 15187 30

597 -10.95 3.77 -49.50 37.00 9.96 17.49 -35.50 68.5 15187 30

613 -10.85 3.68 -46.20 35.90 9.79 17.14 -36.10 65.4 15187 30
157

Table A- 30. Basic statistics for Mooring PN4 during Canek 20 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # 

of obs

sample 

interval

629 -3.57 10.65 -39.60 34.60 9.61 16.82 -40.90 65.6 15187 30

645 -3.41 10.46 -37.30 32.40 9.40 16.47 -38.70 68.7 15187 30

661 -3.25 10.34 -37.20 35.60 9.12 16.00 -36.80 65.4 15187 30

677 -3.22 10.25 -34.40 36.60 8.83 15.60 -38.70 61.9 15187 30

693 -3.12 10.22 -36.10 38.30 8.60 15.19 -37.60 63.2 15187 30

709 -3.06 10.13 -35.40 39.80 8.37 14.90 -37.90 62.1 15187 30

725 -2.95 10.01 -33.40 36.50 8.20 14.57 -38.40 60.6 15187 30

741 -2.77 9.85 -36.80 36.70 7.95 14.27 -35.50 58.3 15187 30

757 -2.53 9.74 -35.10 36.90 7.70 13.87 -34.60 62.6 15187 30

773 -2.40 9.63 -39.30 33.10 7.40 13.41 -30.50 60.2 15187 30

789 -2.30 9.53 -37.00 35.00 7.16 12.96 -27.80 53.8 15187 30

805 -2.21 9.43 -33.50 34.20 6.97 12.57 -24.90 47.8 15187 30

821 -2.18 9.37 -31.70 34.80 6.70 12.24 -24.50 48.5 15187 30

837 -2.11 9.34 -28.70 34.20 6.38 11.96 -22.50 53.3 15187 30

853 -1.91 9.26 -29.00 38.90 6.08 11.67 -24.70 51.5 15187 30

869 -1.71 9.28 -29.40 38.20 5.72 11.35 -23.90 56 15187 30

885 -1.57 9.38 -36.40 39.50 5.39 11.01 -24.90 59 15187 30

901 -1.50 9.42 -38.30 36.30 4.98 10.64 -27.70 57.3 15187 30

917 -1.41 9.38 -35.00 34.80 4.58 10.23 -30.60 59.6 15187 30

933 -1.25 9.35 -36.30 36.20 4.15 9.78 -30.20 51.5 15187 30

949 -1.04 9.36 -34.10 35.90 3.78 9.37 -33.00 40.6 15187 30

965 -0.86 9.26 -30.60 37.40 3.45 8.94 -30.80 37.7 15187 30

981 -0.71 9.09 -31.10 39.30 3.12 8.47 -32.40 34.4 15187 30

997 -0.55 8.83 -32.80 39.70 2.89 7.96 -28.90 34.3 15187 30

1013 -0.39 8.69 -36.40 42.40 2.59 7.52 -28.70 30.4 15187 30

1215 0.72 10.35 -25.00 38.30 0.68 6.54 -21.40 20.5 30371 45

1470 1.81 10.79 -27.50 41.60 -0.10 5.76 -18.60 15.9 30373 45

1756 1.67 11.32 -28.80 43.50 -0.12 6.02 -21.10 16.9 30369 45

2262 1.57 11.52 -29.80 41.50 -0.25 6.46 -24.90 25.7 30370 45

2768 1.57 12.04 -30.00 39.10 0.37 6.67 -20.60 27.3 30371 45

3288 0.97 11.73 -31.90 38.50 1.29 6.13 -16.30 28 30371 45
158

Table A- 31. Basic statistics for Mooring PN4 during Canek 23

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs

sample 

interval

50 -20.02 41.39 -163.90 77.00 -6.34 46.66 -133.90 147.70 18620 30

66 -19.94 40.89 -158.30 80.10 -5.68 46.87 -135.70 142.70 18620 30

82 -19.99 39.70 -154.40 79.30 -5.04 45.79 -131.30 132.20 18620 30

98 -19.74 37.68 -151.80 80.80 -4.31 43.53 -121.20 116.60 18620 30

114 -19.11 34.97 -143.40 73.60 -3.55 40.91 -114.70 108.60 18620 30

130 -18.27 32.07 -159.60 63.60 -2.70 38.49 -113.80 100.80 18620 30

146 -17.34 29.80 -150.20 55.20 -2.09 36.32 -111.00 93.20 18620 30

162 -16.36 28.01 -146.30 53.40 -1.73 34.42 -107.30 95.90 18620 30

178 -15.35 26.46 -156.30 51.20 -1.61 32.87 -100.20 97.30 18620 30

194 -14.59 25.18 -163.70 50.40 -1.45 31.43 -97.20 94.90 18620 30

210 -13.97 24.02 -180.00 51.90 -1.37 30.13 -92.00 92.20 18620 30

226 -13.36 23.05 -161.50 54.30 -1.31 28.92 -87.20 88.40 18620 30

242 -12.77 22.15 -163.40 53.60 -1.33 27.84 -88.10 88.00 18620 30

258 -12.20 21.27 -166.70 51.30 -1.32 26.91 -86.40 83.00 18620 30

274 -11.68 20.55 -170.40 48.80 -1.24 26.06 -88.10 80.30 18620 30

290 -11.25 19.94 -167.80 45.70 -1.11 25.30 -83.30 78.70 18620 30

306 -10.92 19.32 -159.70 43.30 -0.95 24.48 -81.00 70.10 18620 30

322 -10.58 18.66 -159.90 39.50 -0.81 23.68 -76.90 71.00 18620 30

338 -10.28 17.90 -136.40 40.70 -0.70 22.99 -71.10 69.60 18620 30

354 -9.96 17.24 -116.10 40.60 -0.56 22.37 -66.30 69.90 18620 30

370 -9.66 16.76 -105.80 40.40 -0.45 21.74 -66.30 71.50 18620 30

386 -9.45 16.33 -109.60 38.40 -0.47 21.10 -66.00 68.00 18620 30

402 -9.24 15.91 -88.20 39.10 -0.47 20.51 -63.00 66.10 18620 30

418 -8.88 15.44 -56.70 38.00 -0.36 20.00 -63.30 66.70 18620 30

426 -7.41 16.08 -234.40 47.60 -0.32 19.78 -99.20 195.10 18620 30

434 -8.52 14.96 -55.00 36.70 -0.25 19.59 -61.10 64.50 18620 30

442 -7.08 15.40 -191.60 37.60 -0.39 18.97 -65.70 147.80 18620 30

450 -8.14 14.56 -55.30 34.70 -0.27 19.06 -60.90 61.20 18620 30

458 -6.80 14.85 -158.60 38.30 -0.49 18.34 -53.70 145.00 18620 30

466 -7.88 14.10 -54.00 33.50 -0.41 18.37 -57.60 60.10 18620 30

474 -6.54 14.44 -149.90 37.20 -0.53 17.85 -52.10 147.40 18620 30

482 -7.59 13.60 -54.70 34.30 -0.50 17.73 -53.30 56.40 18620 30

490 -6.32 14.08 -205.00 36.30 -0.55 17.39 -50.10 148.20 18620 30

498 -7.20 13.00 -52.50 33.80 -0.45 16.91 -51.80 57.40 18620 30

506 -6.13 13.72 -167.30 34.60 -0.57 17.00 -48.50 152.30 18620 30

522 -5.94 13.40 -162.50 34.50 -0.56 16.55 -47.70 140.30 18620 30

538 -5.65 13.01 -155.20 33.20 -0.64 16.05 -45.80 140.80 18620 30
159

Table A- 31. Basic statistics for Mooring PN4 during Canek 23 (continued)

depth mean_u std_u min_u max_u mean_v std_v min_v max_v

MMS # of 

obs sample interval

554 -5.47 12.76 -148.80 31.20 -0.72 15.64 -43.60 145.80 18620 30

570 -5.31 12.48 -154.70 30.30 -0.77 15.18 -42.40 112.40 18620 30

586 -5.04 12.19 -160.80 29.20 -0.82 14.73 -46.90 107.60 18620 30

602 -4.82 11.96 -139.50 26.10 -0.86 14.33 -39.80 105.70 18620 30

618 -4.66 11.69 -125.30 28.40 -0.89 13.98 -37.80 98.20 18620 30

634 -4.50 11.46 -117.90 29.90 -0.92 13.67 -37.50 105.80 18620 30

650 -4.27 11.19 -128.20 30.00 -0.96 13.29 -36.80 81.90 18620 30

666 -4.10 11.00 -130.80 28.50 -1.03 12.96 -37.10 82.60 18620 30

682 -3.95 10.86 -99.70 30.00 -1.17 12.65 -37.20 92.30 18620 30

698 -3.76 10.71 -108.10 32.10 -1.29 12.41 -39.30 85.20 18620 30

714 -3.57 10.55 -101.50 31.90 -1.38 12.14 -37.00 76.30 18620 30

730 -3.38 10.36 -87.50 31.90 -1.44 11.86 -34.90 54.80 18620 30

746 -3.22 10.21 -90.10 31.30 -1.48 11.57 -33.60 45.50 18620 30

762 -3.06 10.03 -76.60 30.60 -1.58 11.32 -33.40 57.40 18620 30

778 -2.91 9.84 -89.70 33.30 -1.70 11.13 -35.30 57.00 18620 30

794 -2.70 9.63 -86.80 31.80 -1.77 10.94 -33.50 70.10 18620 30

810 -2.53 9.46 -87.50 31.30 -1.81 10.76 -33.20 70.70 18620 30

826 -2.32 9.38 -64.20 32.70 -1.86 10.57 -34.20 73.80 18620 30

842 -2.14 9.29 -72.90 33.50 -1.92 10.45 -35.80 81.00 18620 30

858 -1.95 9.21 -61.00 34.20 -1.98 10.34 -39.90 76.30 18620 30

874 -1.77 9.12 -52.50 34.10 -2.08 10.10 -39.90 64.00 18620 30

890 -1.57 8.97 -40.40 36.40 -2.15 9.91 -39.50 70.20 18620 30

906 -1.37 8.91 -32.70 36.10 -2.20 9.74 -40.30 61.60 18620 30

922 -1.15 8.84 -35.00 35.00 -2.32 9.62 -41.30 54.80 18620 30

938 -0.97 8.75 -40.70 34.30 -2.34 9.42 -43.00 41.60 18620 30

954 -0.81 8.62 -31.40 37.30 -2.35 9.19 -40.50 28.80 18620 30

970 -0.64 8.44 -33.30 34.60 -2.32 8.97 -42.10 26.30 18620 30

986 -0.46 8.07 -24.40 34.90 -2.35 8.55 -40.30 24.00 18620 30

1002 -2.47 16.75 -51.90 55.30 2.08 15.05 -45.20 51.50 18620 30

1218 1.50 9.00 -23.50 37.60 -2.83 7.75 -30.60 18.80 33313 45

1473 1.52 7.60 -18.39 36.17 -2.61 6.80 -30.98 15.17 9307 60

1758 1.90 9.33 -24.90 39.60 -3.10 7.36 -30.00 19.20 37236 45

2284 1.13 8.77 -23.58 33.25 -3.51 7.78 -28.93 19.96 18619 30

2811 1.13 7.95 -21.22 32.25 -2.77 6.88 -22.28 17.96 9301 60

3340 1.38 10.02 -31.70 38.40 -2.66 6.98 -25.70 22.70 37237 45
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering the sound use of our land and water 

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure 

that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging 

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a 

major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people 

who live in island communities.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Mission

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the 

exploration and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that 

appropriately balances economic development, energy independence, and 

environmental protection through oil and gas leases, renewable energy 

development and environmental reviews and studies.