4.7 Article

Evaluation of shortwave infrared atmospheric correction for ocean color remote sensing of Chesapeake Bay

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 114, 期 10, 页码 2238-2247

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.027

关键词

Ocean color; Atmospheric correction; MODIS; Chesapeake Bay

资金

  1. NASA MODIS Science Team

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The NASA Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer onboard the Aqua platform (MODIS-Aqua) provides a viable data stream for operational water quality monitoring of Chesapeake Bay. Marine geophysical products from MODIS-Aqua depend on the efficacy of the atmospheric correction process, which can be problematic in coastal environments. The operational atmospheric correction algorithm for MODIS-Aqua requires an assumption of negligible near-infrared water-leaving radiance, nL(w)(NIR). This assumption progressively degrades with increasing turbidity and, as such, methods exist to account for non-negligible nL(w)(NIR) within the atmospheric correction process or to use alternate radiometric bands where the assumption is satisfied, such as those positioned within shortwave infrared (SWIR) region of the spectrum. We evaluated a decade-long time-series of nL(w)(lambda) from MODIS-Aqua in Chesapeake Bay derived using NIR and SWIR bands for atmospheric correction. Low signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) for the SWIR bands of MODIS-Aqua added noise errors to the derived radiances, which produced broad, flat frequency distributions of nL(w)(lambda) relative to those produced using the NIR bands. The SWIR approach produced an increased number of negative nL(w)(lambda) and decreased sample size relative to the NIR approach. Revised vicarious calibration and regional tuning of the scheme to switch between the NIR and SWIR approaches may improve retrievals in Chesapeake Bay, however, poor SNR values for the MODIS-Aqua SWIR bands remain the primary deficiency of the SWIR-based atmospheric correction approach. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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