4.5 Article

Comparison of different semi-empirical algorithms to estimate chlorophyll-a concentration in inland lake water

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Volume 170, Issue 1-4, Pages 231-244

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-1228-7

Keywords

Field spectral; Lake Chagan; Continuum removal; Three-band model

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40801137, 40871168, 40671138]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [07YJ011001, CXNIGLAS200807]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on in situ water sampling and field spectral measurement from June to September 2004 in Lake Chagan, a comparison of several existing semi-empirical algorithms to determine chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) content was made by applying them to the field spectra and in situ chlorophyll measurements. Results indicated that the first derivative of reflectance was well correlated with Chl-a. The highest correlation between the first derivative and Chl-a was at 680 nm. The two-band model, NIR/red ratio of R(710/670), was also an effective predictor of Chl-a concentration. Since the two-band ratios model is a special case of the three-band model developed recently, three-band model in Lake Chagan showed a higher resolution. The new algorithm named reverse continuum removal relies on the reflectance peak at 700 nm whose shape and position depend strongly upon chlorophyll concentration: The depth and area of the peak above a baseline showed a linear relationship to Chl-a concentration. All of the algorithms mentioned proved to be of value and can be used to predict Chl-a concentration. Best results were obtained by using the algorithms of the first derivative, which yielded R (2) around 0.74 and RMSE around 6.39 mu g/l. The two-band and three-band algorithms were further applied to MERIS when filed spectral were resampled with regard to their center wavelengths. Both algorithms showed an adequate precision, and the differences on the outcome were small with R (2) = 0.70 and 0.71.

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