4.6 Article

Comparison of MERIS, MODIS, SeaWiFS-derived particulate organic carbon, and in situ measurements in the South China Sea

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
Volume 37, Issue 7, Pages 1585-1600

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2015.1088673

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41376042, 41176035]
  2. Natural Science for Youth Foundation [41206029]
  3. youth Foundation - South China Sea institute of oceanology Chinese academy of sciences [SQ201102]
  4. State key Laboratory of Estuarine and Coastal Research [SKLEC-KF201302]
  5. State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences [LTOZZ1201]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS), Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) particulate organic carbon (POC) concentration products for the South China Sea (SCS) were compared with in situ data collected from October 2007 to December 2013. Spectral remote-sensing reflectance (R-rs,R-lambda) was also measured to help understand POC algorithm performance. A strict comparison of the satellite-derived POC and in situ measurements showed that MERIS, MODIS, and SeaWiFS underestimated in situ values by 29.1, 11.7, and 31.5%, respectively. Similar results were obtained with a relaxed matching criterion. Through analysis of the causes of product uncertainty, the results suggested that satellite retrieval of R-rs,R-lambda and the global POC algorithm both have an impact on inversion accuracy. However, the formulation of the POC algorithm seems to be more critical. When a regional algorithm was developed to obtain satellite-derived POC, both the strict and relaxed comparison results showed significant improvement, but for coastal waters, both algorithms had larger errors. Other factors affecting the comparison are also discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available