Evaluation of Semi-Analytical Algorithms to Retrieve Particulate and Dissolved Absorption Coefficients in Gulf of California Optically Complex Waters

Two semi-analytical algorithms, Generalized Inherent Optical Property (GIOP) and Garver-Siegel-Maritorena (GSM), were evaluated in terms of how well they reproduced the absorption coefficient of phytoplankton (aph(λ)) and dissolved and detrital organic matter (adg(λ)) at three wavelengths (λ of 412, 443, and 488 nm) in a zone with optically complex waters, the Upper Gulf of California (UGC) and the Northern Gulf of California (NGC). In the UGC, detritus determines most of the total light absorption, whereas, in the NGC, chromophoric dissolved organic material (CDOM) and phytoplankton dominate. Upon comparing the results of each model with a database assembled from four cruises done from spring to summer (March through September) between 2011 and 2013, it was found that GIOP is a better estimator for aph(λ) than GSM, independently of the region. However, both algorithms underestimate in situ values in the NGC, whereas they overestimate them in the UGC. Errors are associated with the following: (a) the constant a*ph(λ) value used by GSM and GIOP (0.055 m2 mgChla−1) is higher than the most frequent value observed in this study’s data (0.03 m2 mgChla−1), and (b) satellite-derived chlorophyll a concentration (Chla) is biased high compared with in situ Chla. GIOP gave also better results for the adg(λ) estimation than GSM, especially in the NGC. The spectral slope Sdg was identified as an important parameter for estimating adg(λ), and this study’s results indicated that the use of a fixed input value in models was not adequate. The evaluation confirms the lack of generality of algorithms like GIOP and GSM, whose reflectance model is too simplified to capture expected variability. Finally, a greater monitoring effort is suggested in the study area regarding the collection of in situ reflectance data, which would allow explaining the effects that detritus and CDOM may have on the semi-analytical reflectance inversions, as well as isolating the possible influence of the atmosphere on the satellite-derived water reflectance and Chla.

Exposing the Fundamental Role of Spectral Scattering in the PFT Signal

There is increasing interdisciplinary interest in phytoplankton community dynamics as the growing environmental problems of water quality (particularly eutrophication) and climate change demand attention. This has led to a pressing need for improved biophysical and causal understanding of Phytoplankton Functional Type (PFT) optical signals, in order that satellite radiometry may be used to detect ecologically relevant phytoplankton assemblage changes. This understanding can best be achieved with biophysically and biogeochemically consistent phytoplankton Inherent Optical Property (IOP) models, as it is only via modelling that phytoplankton assemblage characteristics can be examined systematically in relation to the bulk optical waterleaving signal. The Equivalent Algal Populations (EAP) model is used here to investigate the source and magnitude of size- and pigment- driven PFT signals in the water-leaving reflectance, as well as the potential to detect these using satellite radiometry. This model places emphasis on explicit biophysical modelling of the phytoplankton population as a holistic determinant of IOPs, and a distinctive attribute is its comprehensive handling of the spectral and angular character of phytoplankton scattering. Selected case studies and sensitivity analyses reveal that phytoplankton spectral scattering is the primary driver of the PFT-related signal. Key findings are that the backscattering-driven signal in the 520 to 600 nm region is the critical PFT identifier at marginal biomass, and that while PFT information does appear at blue and red wavelengths, it is compromised by biomass/gelbstoff ambiguity in the blue and low signal in the red, due primarily to absorption by water. These findings are hoped to provide considerable insight into the next generation of PFT algorithms.