| Literature DB >> 27775626 |
Tara Blakey1, Assefa Melesse2, Michael C Sukop3, Georgio Tachiev4, Dean Whitman5, Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm6.
Abstract
This study evaluated the ability to improve Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS) chl-a retrieval from optically shallow coastal waters by applying algorithms specific to the pixels' benthic class. The form of the Ocean Color (OC) algorithm was assumed for this study. The operational atmospheric correction producing Level 2 SeaWiFS data was retained since the focus of this study was on establishing the benefit from the alternative specification of the bio-optical algorithm. Benthic class was determined through satellite image-based classification methods. Accuracy of the chl-a algorithms evaluated was determined through comparison with coincident in situ measurements of chl-a. The regionally-tuned models that were allowed to vary by benthic class produced more accurate estimates of chl-a than the single, unified regionally-tuned model. Mean absolute percent difference was approximately 70% for the regionally-tuned, benthic class-specific algorithms. Evaluation of the residuals indicated the potential for further improvement to chl-a estimation through finer characterization of benthic environments. Atmospheric correction procedures specialized to coastal environments were recognized as areas for future improvement as these procedures would improve both classification and algorithm tuning.Entities:
Keywords: SeaWiFS; algorithms; bottom reflectance; chl-a; eutrophication; modeling; ocean color remote sensing; optically shallow; validation; water quality
Year: 2016 PMID: 27775626 PMCID: PMC5087534 DOI: 10.3390/s16101749
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Location of study area sample stations in Florida Bay, FL, USA showing bathymetry contours as colored lines. The contours were created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission based on trackline data collected in 1990 [12].
Summary of matchup data showing per season counts and average in situ chl-a annually.
| Year | Spring | Summer | Fall | Winter | Total | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 1 | 1 | 0.6 | |||
| 1999 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 0.5 | ||
| 2000 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 1.3 |
| 2001 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0.4 | ||
| 2002 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 1.6 | ||
| 2003 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 2.7 | ||
| 2004 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 0.3 |
| 2005 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 1.1 |
| 2006 | 1 | 9 | 11 | 21 | 1.7 | |
| 2007 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 1.1 | |
| 2008 | 2 | 2 | 0.7 | |||
| Overall | 26 | 27 | 24 | 26 | 103 | 1.2 |
Coefficients and goodness of fit for regionally-tuned chl-a retrieval models including those based on alternative band ratios.
| Ratio | a0 | a1 | a2 | Adjusted R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.161 | 2.382 | 10.777 | 0.191 | |
| 0.003 | 0.646 | 0.394 | −0.013 | |
| 3.704 | −3.036 | 0.553 | 0.140 |
Figure 2In situ measured chl-a versus (A) OC4v6 chl-a product and (B) Unified regionally-tuned model chl-a based on X.
Coefficients and goodness of fit for benthic class-specific chl-a retrieval models.
| Class-Specific Model | a0 | a1 | a2 | Adjusted R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sparse-Low | −0.075 | 5.095 | 25.241 | 0.332 |
| Medium-Dense | 0.146 | 5.557 | 16.282 | 0.234 |
Dynamic range of in situ chl-a compared to ranges of chl-a retrieved through models.
| Seagrass Class | In Situ | OC4v6 | Regionally-Tuned | Class-Specific |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sparse-Low | 0.3–8.4 | 2.8–36.1 | 0.5–1.4 | 0.5–6.2 |
| Medium-Dense | 0.1–8.4 | 2.6–231.1 | 0.5–10.3 | 0.5–10.4 |
Mean absolute percent difference by season for the operational SeaWiFS and the benthic-class specific model.
| Spring | Summer | Fall | Winter | All | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OC4v6 | 1908% | 2590% | 1214% | 2917% | 2180% |
| Class-Specific Overall | 60% | 83% | 54% | 107% | 77% |
| Sparse-Low | 42% | 80% | 80% | 62% | 64% |
| Medium-Dense | 85% | 87% | 38% | 131% | 87% |
Figure 3Residuals from (A) Sparse-low and (B) Medium-dense models with markers distinguished by season. The x-axis is the value of the band ratio X (defined in Equation (2)).
Figure 4Residuals from (A) Sparse-low and (B) Medium-dense models with markers distinguished by station.