4.1 Article

Landsat-based remote sensing of lake water quality characteristics, including chlorophyll and colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM)

Journal

LAKE AND RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 373-382

Publisher

NORTH AMER LAKE MANAGEMENT SOC
DOI: 10.1080/07438140509354442

Keywords

Landsat; humic color; chlorophyll; Secchi disk transparency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ground-based measurements on 15 Minnesota lakes with wide ranges of optical properties and Landsat TM data from the same lakes were used to evaluate the effect of humic color on satellite-inferred water quality conditions. Color (C-440), as measured by absorbance at 440 nm, causes only small biases in estimates of Secchi disk transparency (SDT) from Landsat TM data, except at very high values (> similar to 300 chloroplatinate units, CPU). Similarly, when chlorophyll a (chl a) levels are moderate or high (> 10 pg/L), low-to-moderate levels of humic color have only a small influence on the relationship between SDT and chl a concentration, but it has a pronounced influence at high levels of C-440 (e.g., > similar to 200 CPU). However, deviations from the general chi a-SDT relationship occur at much lower C. values (similar to 60 CPU) when chi a levels are low. Good statistical relationships were found between optical properties of lake water generally associated with algal abundance (SDT, chi a, turbidity) and measured brightness of various Landsat TM bands. The best relationships for chi a (based on R 2 and absence of statistical outliers or lakes with large leverage) were combinations of bands 1, 2, or 4 with the band ratio 1:3 (R-2 = 0.88). Although TM bands 14 individually or as simple ratios were poor predictors of C., multiple regression analyses between ln(C-440) and combinations of bands 1-4 and band ratios yielded several relationships with R-2 > 0.70, suggesting that C-440 can be estimated with fair reliability from Landsat TM data.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available