| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Quantification of shallow water quality parameters by means of remote sensingInstitute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Department of Geography, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Department of Geography, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand, jg.gao{at}auckland.ac.nz Quantification of quality parameters of inland and near shore waters by means of remote sensing has encountered varying degrees of success in spite of the high variability of the parameters under consideration and limitations of remote sensors themselves. This paper comprehensively evaluates the quantification of four types of water quality parameters: inorganic sediment particles, phytoplankton pigments, coloured dissolved organic material and Secchi disk depth. It concentrates on quantification requirements, as well as the options in selecting the most appropriate sensor data for the purpose. Relevant factors, such as quantification implementation and validation of the quantified results are also extensively discussed. This review reveals that the relationship between in situ samples and their corresponding remotely sensed data can be linear or nonlinear, but are nearly always site-specific. The quantification has been attempted from terrestrial satellite data largely for suspended sediments and chlorophyll concentrations. The quantification has been implemented through integration of remotely sensed imagery data, in situ water samples and ancillary data in a geographic information system (GIS). The introduction of GIS makes the quantification feasible for more variables at an increasingly higher accuracy. Affected by the number and quality of in situ samples, accuracy of quantification has been reported in different ways and varies widely.
Key Words: chlorophyll quantitative remote sensing remote sensing shallow estuary suspended sediment water quality
Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 27, No. 1,
24-43 (2003) |
|||