The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Remote sensing of phytoplankton pigments: A comparison of empirical and theoretical approaches
Abstract
Algorithms that have been used on a routine basis for remote sensing of the phytoplankton pigment, chlorophyll- a, from ocean colour data from satellite sensors such as the CZCS (Coastal Zone Color Scanner), SeaWiFS (Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor) and OCTS (Ocean Colour and Temperature Scanner) are all of an empirical nature. However, there exist theoretical models that allow ocean colour to be expressed as a function of the inherent optical properties of seawater, such as the absorption coefficient and the backscattering coefficient. These properties can in turn be expressed as functions of chlorophyll- a, at least for the so-called Case 1 waters in which phytoplankton may be considered to be the single, independent variable responsible for most of the variations in the marine optical properties. Here, we use such a theoretical approach to model variations in ocean colour as a function of chlorophyll- a concentration, and compare the results with some empirical models in routine use. The parameters of phytoplankton absorption necessary for the implementation of the ocean colour model are derived from our database of over 700 observations of phytoplankton absorption spectra and concurrent measurements of phytoplankton pigments by HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography) techniques. Since there are reports in the literature that significant differences exist in the performance of the algorithms in polar regions compared with lower latitudes, the model is first implemented using observations made at latitudes less than 50. It is then applied to the Labrador Sea, a high-latitude environment. Our results show that there are indeed differences in the performance of the algorithm at high latitudes, and that these differences may be attributed to changes in the optical characteristics of phytoplankton that accompany changes in the taxonomic composition of their assemblages. The sensitivities of the model to assumptions made regarding absorption by coloured dissolved organic matter (or yellow substances) and backscattering by particles are examined. The importance of Raman scattering on ocean colour and its influence on the algorithms are also investigated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Remote sensing of phytoplankton groups in case 1 waters from global SeaWiFS imagery
Alvain, S., Moulin, C., Dandonneau, Y., & Bréon, F. M. (2005) · Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers · doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2005.06.015 · Cited by 384
Can spherical eukaryotic microalgae cells be treated as optically homogeneous?
Bhowmik, A., & Pilon, L. (2016) · Journal of the Optical Society of America A · doi:10.1364/josaa.33.001495 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Sathyendranath, S., Cota, G., Stuart, V., Maass, H., & Platt, T.
- Venue
- International Journal of Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 249-273
- ISSN
- 0143-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5901
- OpenAlex
- W2055841721
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Remote sensing of phytoplankton pigments: A comparison of empirical and theoretical approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/014311601449925
- The paper
- Sathyendranath, S., Cota, G., Stuart, V., Maass, H., & Platt, T. (2001). Remote sensing of phytoplankton pigments: A comparison of empirical and theoretical approaches. International Journal of Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1080/014311601449925
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.