Cited by 40Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationWater Quality Monitoring Technologies

Landsat TM/ETM+ and machine-learning algorithms for limnological studies and algal bloom management of inland lakes

Lin, Shengpan, Novitski, Linda N., Qi, Jiaguo, Stevenson, Robert Jan·2018·Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

Abstract

Accumulating remotely sensed and ground-measured data and improvements in data mining such as machine-learning techniques open new opportunities for monitoring and managing algal blooms over large spatial scales. The goal of this study was to test the accuracy of remotely sensed algal biomass determined with machine-learning algorithms and Landsat TM/ETM+ imagery. We used chlorophyll-a concentration data from the 2007 National Lake Assessment (NLA) (lake N = 1157) by the US Environmental Protection Agency to train and test Landsat TM/ETM+ algorithms. Results showed significant improvements in chlorophyll-a retrieval accuracy using machine-learning algorithms compared with traditional empirical models using linear regression. Specifically, the results from boosted regression trees and random forest explained, respectively, 45.8% and 44.5% of chlorophyll-a variation. Multiple linear regression could only explain 39.8% of chlorophyll-a variation. The chlorophyll-a concentration derived from Landsat TM/ETM+ and a simple to use Google Earth Engine application, accurately characterized a 2009 algal bloom in western Lake Erie to show the model worked well for the analysis of temporal changes in algal conditions. Compared with chlorophyll-a data from the NLA, chlorophyll-a measurements with our Landsat TM/ETM+ model had almost the same correlation with lake’s total phosphorus concentrations, especially when using multiple Landsat images. Therefore, Landsat measurements of chlorophyll-a have value for ecological assessments and managing algal problems in lakes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1117/1.jrs.12.026003

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, S., Novitski, L. N., Qi, J., & Stevenson, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Nanjing Agricultural University (CN)
Venue
Journal of Applied Remote Sensing
Published
2018-04-13
Volume
12
Issue
02
Pages
1-17
ISSN
1931-3195 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2798163535
Cited by
40
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Applied Remote Sensing (publishedVersion)
Funders
Environmental Protection Agency (R835203)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality Monitoring Technologies
Keywords
algal bloom management, chlorophyll-a retrieval, Landsat TM/ETM+, machine learning, boosted regression trees, random forest, inland lakes, Lake Erie, total phosphorus, algal biomass, Google Earth Engine, limnology

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