4.6 Article

Evaluation of SeaWiFS and MODIS chlorophyll-a products in the Argentinean Patagonian Continental Shelf (38S-55S)

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 251-273

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431160802311133

关键词

-

资金

  1. CONICET
  2. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica [PICTO 6524/1108/03-ANPCyT 01-11563, PICT03-15221]
  3. Global Environmental Facility (GEF) [28385]
  4. NASA SeaWiFS Project
  5. NASA/GSFC/DAAC
  6. Instituto Antartico Argentino
  7. Laboratoire de Biogeochimie et Chimie Marines at the Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris (France)
  8. Servicio de Hidrografia Naval (Argentina)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Field measurements of surface chlorophyll-a concentration were used to evaluate for the first time the performance of the standard Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and both standard and regional Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) ocean colour algorithms in the Patagonian Continental Shelf (PCS) between 38S and 55S. The results showed that the regional algorithms did not significantly improve the global algorithm estimates. Moreover, the SeaWiFS OC4v4 algorithm, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) standard chlorophyll product, showed the best performance among all the algorithms examined. Nonetheless, all the global and local algorithms analysed showed uncertainties dependent on chlorophyll concentration. Low chlorophyll-a concentration values tended to be overestimated and high values tended to be underestimated. A regional analysis within the PCS showed that higher uncertainties are found in the homogeneous side of the tidal fronts present in the PCS, in areas suggested to be optically complex case 2 waters, while a better result (less bias) was obtained in the southern mid-shelf region. We discuss the probable reasons and provide possible explanations of the regional differences in the performance of the algorithms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据