4.7 Article

Atmospheric correction of SeaWiFS imagery over turbid coastal waters: A practical method

Journal

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
Volume 74, Issue 2, Pages 195-206

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00080-8

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current SeaWiFS algorithms frequently yield negative water-leaving radiance values in turbid Case II waters primarily because the water-column reflectance interferes with the atmospheric correction based on the 765-nm and 865-nm spectral bands. Here we present a simple, practical method to separate the water-column reflectance from the total reflectance at 765 nm and 865 nm. Assuming the type of aerosol does not vary much over relatively small spatial scales (similar to 50-100 km), we first define the aerosol type over less turbid waters. We then transfer it to the turbid area by using a nearest neighbor method. While the aerosol type is fixed, the concentration can vary. This way, both the aerosol reflectance and the water-column reflectance at 765 nm and 865 nm may be derived. The default NASA atmospheric correction scheme subsequently is used to obtain the aerosol scattering components at shorter wavelengths. This simple method was tested under various atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, and it proved effective in reducing the errors of both the water-leaving radiance and the chlorophyll concentration estimates. In addition, in areas where the default NASA algorithms created a mask due to atmospheric correction failure, water-leaving radiance and chlorophyll concentrations were recovered. This method, in comparison with field data and other turbid water algorithms, was tested for the Gulf of Maine and turbid, posthurricane Gulf of Mexico waters. In the Gulf of Maine it provided more accurate retrievals with fewer failures of the atmospheric correction algorithms. In the Gulf of Mexico it provided far fewer pixels with algorithms failure than the other methods, did not overestimate chlorophyll as severely, and provided fewer negative water-leaving radiance values. (C) Elsevier Science Inc., 2000.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available