4.2 Article

Discrimination of diatoms from other phytoplankton using ocean-colour data

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 272, 期 -, 页码 59-68

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps272059

关键词

phytoplankton community structure; ocean colour; diatoms; remote sensing; SeaWiFS; North West Atlantic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent papers have highlighted the differences between the absorption characteristics of phytoplankton populations dominated by diatoms and those of other types of phytoplankton populations from the North West Atlantic. It has been suggested that these differences could introduce a bias in satellite-derived concentrations of the phytoplankton pigment, chl a. In this paper, these differences in optical properties of diatoms are exploited to develop a bio-optical algorithm to distinguish diatom populations from other types of phytoplankton populations in the region. The algorithm is applied to SeaWiFS data on ocean colour, and the results are compared with in situ data on phytoplankton population types based on HPLC data. The comparison shows that the algorithm successfully distinguishes between diatoms and non-diatom populations in the majority of cases studied. A branching algorithm is then applied to the satellite data to estimate chl a concentration in the region: a diatom-specific algorithm is used when diatoms are identified in a pixel, and another algorithm for mixed populations when this is not the case. The estimated chl a concentrations are compared with in situ estimates when matching observations exist. The results show that the branching bio-optical algorithm often performs better than the OC4 algorithm used in standard processing of SeaWiFS data. However, the results may be poor when the initial identification of population types is wrong. Finally, the new algorithm is used to map the distribution of diatoms in the region in spring and summer: the patterns that emerge are consistent with the known features of diatom distributions in the region.

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

4.2
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