李尉尉,李铜基,朱建华,韩冰,郭凯,贾迪.基于水上法的四种典型估算遥感反射率方法的应用效果评估[J].海洋通报,2020,(1):127-133
基于水上法的四种典型估算遥感反射率方法的应用效果评估
Application evaluation of four typical remote sensing reflectance estimation approaches based on water method
投稿时间:2019-03-20  修订日期:2019-06-11
DOI:
中文关键词:  水色  水上法  数据处理  遥感反射率
英文关键词:ocean color  Above-water methods  data processing method  remote-sensing reflectance
基金项目:
作者单位E-mail
李尉尉 国家海洋技术中心天津 300112 13821227862@163.com 
李铜基 国家海洋技术中心天津 300112 rsresearch@163.com 
朱建华 国家海洋技术中心天津 300112  
韩冰 国家海洋技术中心天津 300112  
郭凯 国家海洋技术中心天津 300112  
贾迪 国家海洋技术中心天津 300112  
摘要点击次数: 492
全文下载次数: 371
中文摘要:
      本文简要介绍了 M99、R06、G01、L10四种典型水上法估算遥感反射率方法的原理,利用现场观测数据,对四种方法的应用效果进行了评估分析。利用高光谱 SAS实测的 76个站位数据,对比分析了四种方法结果的差异性以及不同太阳天顶角和云况条件的差异分布,结果表明,四种方法估算的遥感反射率总体差异性不大,有 80 %站位的差异在 10 %以内,L10方法的结果更接近四种方法的平均值,R06方法的结果与 L10大体相当,当太阳天顶角过大时,四种方法估算遥感反射率的差异较大,在阴天条件下,差异性有小幅度增大。利用高光谱 SAS和剖面仪 MicroPro同步观测的 73个站位数据,分析了四种水上法与水中法计算遥感反射率的差异性,以及不同水体和太阳天顶角条件的差异分布,结果显示,四种水上法与水中法计算的遥感反射率结果差异分布趋势大体一致,约 75 %站位的差异在 15 %以内,在较好的比对环境下 (去掉近岸站位和太阳天顶角较大的站位),四种方法与水中法差异明显减小,其中,R06和 L10方法在处理粗糙海面的天空和太阳耀斑修正方面略优。
英文摘要:
      This paper briefly summarizes the principle of estimating the remote sensing reflectance by four typical Abovewater methods of M99, R06, G01 and L10, and studies the applications of the four data processing approaches by using insitu data. Using the measured 76 in-situ data of HyperSAS, this paper shows the discrepancies among the four methods and the coefficient of variation (CV) distributions from different solar zenith angles and various weather conditions. The results present that the differences among the estimated remote sensing reflectance (Rrs) from four approaches are small, the CV distributions generated from 80 % of the stations situated within 10 %, the result of the L10 is closer to the average of the four approaches, and the R06 is roughly the same as that of the L10. When the solar zenith angle is too large, the difference of Rrs estimated by the four approaches increases, and the difference slightly increases under cloudy conditions. Furthermore, this study also compared the Rrs discrepancies estimated by the four above-water methods and in-water method based on the data collected by the HyperSAS and MicroPro, as well as the CV distributions in various water conditions and from different solar zenith angles. In general, the distributions are generally alike between above-water methods and the in-water method, the CV distributions generated from 75 % of the stations situated within 15 %. In particular, the difference decreases when the data from stations nearshore and large solar zenith angles are excluded. R06 and L10, the two above-water methods, show outstanding capacities in dealing with the sky and sun glint on the rough sea surface.
查看全文    下载PDF阅读器
关闭