Cited by 103Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationMarine and coastal ecosystems

A meta-analysis on harmful algal bloom (HAB) detection and monitoring: a remote sensing perspective

Open access
Khan, Rabia Munsaf, Salehi, Bahram, Mahdianpari, Masoud, Mohammadimanesh, Fariba, Mountrakis, Giorgos, Quackenbush, Lindi J.·2021·Remote Sensing

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3390/rs13214347

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

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
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
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