4.5 Letter

Validity of the Landsat surface reflectance archive for aquatic science: Implications for cloud-based analysis

Journal

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY LETTERS
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lol2.10344

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The US Geological Survey Landsat surface reflectance (SR) archive, originally developed for terrestrial science, is increasingly being used in large-scale water-quality studies. However, these products have not been rigorously validated using in situ measured reflectance. This study quantifies and demonstrates the quality of the SR products using a global dataset (N = 1100). It found that the Landsat 8/9 SR in the green and red bands meet the accuracy requirements, but there are uncertainties and biases in the blue, coastal-aerosol, and visible bands that need to be addressed for advanced applications.
Originally developed for terrestrial science and applications, the US Geological Survey Landsat surface reflectance (SR) archive spanning similar to 40 yr of observations has been increasingly utilized in large-scale water-quality studies. These products, however, have not been rigorously validated using in situ measured reflectance. This letter quantifies and demonstrates the quality of the SR products by harnessing a sizeable global dataset (N = 1100). We found that the Landsat 8/9 SR in the green and red bands marginally meet the targeted accuracy requirements (30%), whereas the uncertainties in the blue and coastal-aerosol bands ranged from 48% to 110%. We further observed > +25% biases in the visible bands of Landsat 5/7 SR, which can introduce an apparent downward trend when applied in time-series analyses combined with Landsat 8/9. Users must exercise caution when using this archive for trend analyses, and progress in atmospheric correction is required to foster advanced applications of the Landsat archive for aquatic science.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available