A meta-analysis on harmful algal bloom (HAB) detection and monitoring: a remote sensing perspective
Open accessAbstract
Algae serves as a food source for a wide range of aquatic species; however, a high concentration of inorganic nutrients under favorable conditions can result in the development of harmful algal blooms (HABs). Many studies have addressed HAB detection and monitoring; however, no global scale meta-analysis has specifically explored remote sensing-based HAB monitoring. Therefore, this manuscript elucidates and visualizes spatiotemporal trends in HAB detection and monitoring using remote sensing methods and discusses future insights through a meta-analysis of 420 journal articles. The results indicate an increase in the quantity of published articles which have facilitated the analysis of sensors, software, and HAB proxy estimation methods. The comparison across multiple studies highlighted the need for a standardized reporting method for HAB proxy estimation. Research gaps include: (1) atmospheric correction methods, particularly for turbid waters, (2) the use of analytical-based models, (3) the application of machine learning algorithms, (4) the generation of harmonized virtual constellation and data fusion for increased spatial and temporal resolutions, and (5) the use of cloud-computing platforms for large scale HAB detection and monitoring. The planned hyperspectral satellites will aid in filling these gaps to some extent. Overall, this review provides a snapshot of spatiotemporal trends in HAB monitoring to assist in decision making for future studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Data fusion is an inherent challenge for algal digital twins.
“According to the literature, data fusion is an inherent challenge for ADTs [66].”
From Reinvigorating algal cultivation for biomass production with digital twin technology - a smart sustainable infrastructure (2024) · cites this paper as [66]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 339 · Cited by 103
- Authors
- Khan, R. M., Salehi, B., Mahdianpari, M., Mohammadimanesh, F., Mountrakis, G., & Quackenbush, L. J.
- Affiliations
- SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (US)
- Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Mahdianpari, Masoud
- ORCID
- Venue
- Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-10-28
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 4347
- ISSN
- 2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3209034724
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 339
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Remote Sensing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine and coastal ecosystems
- Keywords
- harmful algal blooms, HAB monitoring, atmospheric correction, water turbidity, hyperspectral satellite, satellite data fusion, machine learning, cloud computing, eutrophication, spatiotemporal trends
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