MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W348994721

An empirical approach to the remote sensing of the chlorophyll in the optically complex waters of the Estuary and Gulf of Saint-Lawrence

2009· article· en· W348994721 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. Mehmet Yayla

Notice bibliographique

RevueKnowledge UdeS (Institutional Deposit of the University of Sherbrooke) · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueMarine and coastal ecosystems
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEstuarySAINTOceanographyChlorophyll aRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceGeographyGeologyHistoryBiologyBotany
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Data from five research cruises performed between 1997 and 2001 were processed in order to investigate the potential for improving remote sensing algorithms in the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence. Measured in situ parameters included concentration-dependent indicators of the three critical, optically-active constituents, chlorophyll, Coloured Dissolved Organic Matter (CDOM) and Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM). The radiometric dataset used to investigate different types of algorithms consisted of multi-band above-surface remote sensing reflectance (R[subscript rs]) estimates. These estimates were computed from downwelling surface irradiance and upwelling sub-surface radiance measurements acquired using a SeaWiFS Profiler Multichannel Radiometer (SPMR). The chlorophyll data varied from approximately 0.1 to 17.3 mg.m[superscript -3] in the study region which extended from stations near the Saguenay River to the outer extremes of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The CDOM and SPM concentration indicators were lower in the Gulf compared to the Estuary. Moderate correlation between in situ measurements was found between chlorophyll and SPM, as well as between CDOM and SPM. Chlorophyll and CDOM were virtually uncorrelated. The standard SeaWiFS Case-I chlorophyll retrieval algorithm, OC4v4, was applied to SPMR data acquired over a significant number of sampling stations (N=169). Algorithm shortcomings were noted when the OC4v4 algorithm was applied directly to the study region. Specific shortcomings, the overestimation of low, and underestimation of high chlorophyll concentrations were consistent with previous findings in coastal regions and particularly with previous findings in the NW Atlantic and in high latitude regions. In addition, the algorithmic output was found to be fairly strongly correlated with CDOM and SPM. A perturbation approach, based on the analysis of residuals between OC4v4 estimates and in situ data, showed that the retrieved chlorophyll biases (overestimates) were dependent on SPM and CDOM (especially at low in situ chlorophyll concentrations). An analysis of the spectral parameters (band ratios and spectral slopes) with respect to in situ constituent concentrations showed that both band ratios and band slopes have a greater dependency on CDOM and/or SPM than on chlorophyll. This observation was supported by radiative transfer calculations which showed that the variability of the blue-to-green band ratios due to changes in CDOM and SPM concentrations could be greater than the variability due to changes in chlorophyll concentration. These findings showed that there was no adequate, single band-ratio algorithm for the remote sensing of chlorophyll in our study region. Systematic testing of a large combination of spectral parameters within the context of specific algorithmic formulations resulted in seven prescribed algorithms which provided slight to moderate improvement in the correlation coefficients and root mean square errors relative to in situ chlorophyll and significant decorrelation relative to CDOM and SPM parameters. In general, algorithms based on multiple spectral parameters were more accurate predictors of in situ chlorophyll. In addition to new algorithms, a set of previous algorithms developed by Jacques (2000) for a subregion of the Estuary were validated in the present study. This validation demonstrated a rather remarkable robustness of correlations between in situ and spectral parameters across time and for different types of instruments and measuring conditions. A relatively smaller number of matching SeaWiFS pixels (N=39) and in situ measurements were used to evaluate the performance of the SPMR-derived algorithms. The accuracy of all algorithms deteriorated when applied to satellite data (one possible reason being the shortcomings of the atmospheric correction algorithm, as underscored by the existence of negative values in the reflectance data). Nonetheless, the improvement of the two selected algorithmic formulations relative to the OC4v4 algorithm showed a certain robustness in the face of environmental influences such as atmospheric effects and sensor response variations. Model simulations showed significant shortcomings of the new algorithms in specific turbidity conditions. The selected algorithms were shown to achieve chlorophyll retrievals which were as good as or better than OC4v4 retrievals. Even though the APD<35% accuracy target of the SeaWiFS project could not be reached, new algorithms succeeded to decrease the APD of the remote estimations from 226% to 65% for SPMR data, and from 502% to 95% for SeaWiFS data. In general, our findings showed that the selected algorithmic formulations had the potential for improving chlorophyll retrieval in the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf."--Résumé abrégé par UMI.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,515
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,208
Écart entre enseignants0,188 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueKnowledge UdeS (Institutional Deposit of the University of Sherbrooke)Même sujetMarine and coastal ecosystemsTravaux en français237 207