1. Naval Research Laboratory Stennis Space Center Ocean Optics Section Code 7333 HyCODE January 2003 Miami, FL Richard W. Gould, Jr.Alan Weidemann Robert A. ArnoneVladimir Haltrin Don JohnsonZhongPing Lee Wesley GoodeNicole Herrin Sherwin D. LadnerPaul M. Martinolich Brandon CaseyRegina Smith

2. Objectives Exploit hyperspectral remote sensing measurements to separate optical constituents and understand coastal optical dynamics SeaWiFS/MODIS processing Optical scales of variability Particle size variability Vertical structure from Rrs PHILLS processing Optical water mass classification Organic/inorganic components Mobile Bay outflow (time series)  time series  new IOP algorithms  variogram analyses  affect on VSF  relationships w/oceanography  link surface and subsurface  image mosaic (geolocation)  derive IOP’s  Trace plumes, features  temporal/spatial variability  contribution to scattering  6 cruises

3. Data Sets LEO 2001 July, 32 Stations LEO 2000 July, 67 Stations NGOM, 08/02, 9 stations NGOM, 05/02, 83 stations NGOM, 03/02, 37 stations NGOM, 12/01, 114 stations NGOM, 09/01, 55 stations NGOM, 05/01, 100 stations WFS, 10/98, 60 stations In Situ Imagery LEO and NYBight Gulf of Mexico SeaWiFS: 11/97 - present MODIS: 01/01 - present

4. Data Processing Status Cruise K-ChainHPLCMicro Tops FilterpadRRSHTSRBHydroscatAC9Flo-thruLPCLISSTHystar Tampa 1998 * NA ** ** LEO 2000 NA *** *** LEO 2001 NA **** *** MAY 2002 ***********

5. West Florida Shelf - 1998 Scales of Variability (variogram) Surface/Subsurface Linkages A geostatistical technique to determine spatial correlation scales  (h) =  [z(x i ) - z(x i + h)] 2 where z(x) is a regionalized variable and h is the separation vector (lag). i = 1 N(h) 1 2N(h) spatial, temporal Satellite and in situ

6. SWFS Product6/19/016/22/016/26/016/28/016/30/017/3/017/6/01 a 4120.139490.300090.203660.105130.16170.210130.2144 a 4430.126520.248690.184370.109510.170680.198680.2009 a 4900.10190.176980.144190.109150.151920.159170.12961 a 5100.091680.154060.127870.103950.144430.139910.09967 a 5550.082380.117120.107670.100380.120090.11380.06987 a 6704.39E-010.439 4.39E-01 bb 5555.94E-030.013390.011310.011240.012159.37E-034.93E-03 LEO Mooring/Satellite Comparison Wavelength06/19/0106/22/0106/26/0106/28/0106/30/01 Rrs 4120.002540.002650.00330.006610.00448 4430.00270.00310.003530.006040.00411 4900.003190.004140.00430.005690.00438 5100.003470.004660.004740.005820.00451 5550.003670.005830.005360.005690.00515 6705.98E-040.001350.001140.001130.00123 Chlorophyll_oc42.779444.8113.415331.936893.57078 Chlorophyll_stumpf1.428552.346111.736111.016551.51 MODIS SeaWiFS Compare surface MODIS/SeaWiFS estimates with mooring measurements – Rrs, chlor, IOPs 3-month time series mooring

7. [C] = 1.0 mg/m 3 input QAA output Results of a quasi-analytical inversion algorithm The QAA works well for both coastal and oceanic waters Compared inversion results with different numbers of spectral bands (15 is generally adequate) non-Case I synthetic data input retrieval input retrieval try w/other data sets

8. calibrated, atmospheric and flat-field corrections, 10 m resolution, SeaWIFS bio- optical algorithm PHILLS/SeaWiFS Comparison -- LEO 2001, b b (555) SeaWiFS/PHILLS r = 0.752 High variability of b b in coastal waters Significant optical variability within 1.1 km pixel PHILLS convolved to SeaWiFS bands, smoothed SeaWiFS resampled to PHILLS resolution 31 July, 2001 Apply new algorithms NIR, optimization, beam c/particle size retrieval

9. TSS 19s01 27s04 25ns025 21s04 24s04 22s04 17s02 22s05 18s03 28s04 17s01 24ns1 25ns01 18s01 18s02 TSS and Particle Size, LEO 2000 highest TSS: river, southern bay, bay mouth lowest TSS: off- shore, northern bay Tidal Effects – Little Egg Inlet red points = 1.69 green points = 1.50 blue points = 1.16 (highest tidal currents) (ebb tide or slack after low) (flood tide or slack after high) Relative Tidal Currents Red – highest TSS Green – mid Blue - lowest  0 (555) = 0.94  0 (555) = 0.89  0 (555) = 0.93 smallest particles offshore, largest at bay mouth (resuspension by tidal currents)

10. Partitioning Optical Components estimate a CDOM (412) from a t-w (412) estimate a CDOM  from a CDOM (412) a CDOM ( ) = a CDOM (412) * 1.22189 e (-0.0167( -400)) a CDOM (412)a p (412) a  (412) a det (412) a t-w  )  f (Rrs( )) a CDOM (412) = f (a t-w (412)) a CDOM ( ) = f (a CDOM (412)) a p ( ) = a t-w ( ) - a CDOM ( ) a det ( ) = a p ( ) - a  ( ) a   )  f (Rrs( ))

11. Location of classes 7, 8, and 9 on the image Water Mass Classification 20 May 2002 R: % a det (412) G: % a  (443) B: % a CDOM (412) blue pixels: relatively high CDOM absorption, lower detrital and phytoplankton absorption green pixels: relatively high phytoplankton and CDOM absorption, lower detrital absorption red pixels: relatively high detrital and CDOM absorption, lower phytoplankton absorption Classify each pixel based on the percentages of a det (412), a CDOM (412), and a  (443) Quantitative Easily automated Examine spatial/temporal variability Track water masses Assess proportions of optical constituents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

12. Estimate POM from a p (443) and PIM from a p (412): POM = 4.09898 a p (443) 0.56127 PIMPOM b o (555) = (0.189 CHL 0.751 ) * 0.97 * 660/555 (Loisel & Morel,1998) May 20, 2002 PIM = 8.33835 a p (412) 0.89494 25-75% of TSS due to organic matter 5-25% of scattering due to organic matter Partitioning Organic/Inorganic Components Most scattering is due to inorganic particles at higher particulate loads, POM levels off while PIM continues to increase – PIM will dominate in coastal areas

13. THE BIOGEO-OPTICAL MODEL: THE DATABASE Robert H. Stavn Richard W. Gould, Jr. UNC, Greensboro NRL, Code 7333 1.Particulate mineral scattering cross sections -- the first determined directly from mineral mass concentration and the particle scattering coefficient; multiple regression of particulate scattering against the concentration of suspended mineral matter and suspended particulate organic matter. 2.The suspended mineral matter is the primary control of the volume scattering coefficient of coastal ocean waters. 3.Coastal ocean waters with significant concentrations of suspended mineral matter may affect prediction of the scattering coefficient of particulate organic matter from chlorophyll concentration. 4.Adequate optical models of coastal ocean waters and remote sensing algorithms require a geo- optical database for biogeo-optical modeling. Much more data are needed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS RHS wishes to acknowledge the support of ONR Grant No. N00014-97-1-0812 and several previous ONR grants. RWG and RHS wish to acknowledge the support of the Naval Research Laboratory, Program Elements 61153N and 62435N. Suspended mineral concentration and suspended organic concentration vs. b p (532), Mobile Bay, AL, May 2002 Spectral Optical Scattering Cross Sections (m 2 /g), Suspended Mineral Matter, Mobile Bay, May 2002. b* pm (412) b* pm (440) b* pm (488) b* pm (510) 0.60±0.12 0.59±0.12 0.56±0.11 0.55±0.11 b* pm (532) b* pm (555) b* pm (650) b* pm (676) 0.53±0.10 0.52±0.10 0.38±0.12 0.44±0.08 b* pm (715) 0.42±0.08

14. Measured b b /b (532nm) ratio vs. Wavelength, for the two New Jersey Cruises. Two distinct water types for both Gomex and NJ regions. b b /b ratios of the Northern Gulf of Mexico waters during 2002 (left) and the New Jersey 2000 (right) are similar to the (Petzold 1972) ratio. b b /b ratio can vary widely from the (Petzold 1972) ratio. Note: Each point represents the average bb/b value for each wavelength (slope of the line from the plot in section 1). Spectral shapes for both Gomex and NJ regions are nearly flat.Spectral shapes for both Gomex and NJ regions are nearly flat. May be possible to use b b /b to characterize the VSF in different water types; agrees with the behavior seen in VSF measurements (Haltrin et al., OOXVI 2002).May be possible to use b b /b to characterize the VSF in different water types; agrees with the behavior seen in VSF measurements (Haltrin et al., OOXVI 2002). Measured b b /b (532nm) ratio vs. Wavelength, for the two Gulf of Mexico Cruises. Using b b /b as a Surrogate to the VSF to Characterize Water Masses

15. Non-regional relationship between backscattering and scattering coefficients based on 874 data points. b b /b variability -- from VSF measurements Variability may be related to differences in particle size and/or composition

16. Upcoming Experiment April 2003 – Monterey Bay Lower turbidity, biologically controlled Leverage w/ongoing research in the bay (mooring, CODAR, biological, optical) Multi-ship PHILLS overflights Modeling Transects, 24-hour vertical time-series stations Space available on ship ?? MODIS 250 m

17. Collaborative Efforts 1.SeaWiFS/MODIS/PHILLS -- optical property retrieval, variability (Bob, Curt, Bill S., Paul, …) 2.Scales of optical variability -- imagery and in situ (Rick, Bob, Curt, Mark, Oscar) 3.Optical water mass classification -- detrital, phytoplankton, CDOM (Rick, Bob, Oscar, …. ) 4.Mooring/satellite comparison -- Rrs, IOP’s (Grace, Tommy, Rick) 5.CDOM relationships -- salinity, river discharge (Rick, Bob, Grace, Tommy, Paula?) 6.Optical time series -- LEO (Grace, Tommy, Alan, Oscar, …); GOM (Don, Rick, Bob, Alan, Curt, …)

18. Collaborative Projects 7.VSF parameterization -- impact on Rrs, inversion from Rrs (Alan, Vlad, Ping, Bob, Scott, Emmanuel, …) 8.Organic/Inorganic partitioning -- variability, optical cross- sections, impact on scattering (Rick, Bob S.,Gia) 9.Particle size -- affect on VSF, oceanographic variability (Rick, Vlad, Alan, Emmanuel, …) 10.Surface/Subsurface linkages -- imagery and in situ, WFS upwelling (Rick, Don, Paul, Bob W. …) 11.Assimilation of satellite bio-optics -- model development/validation (Bob, Paul, ….) 12.Bathymetry & bottom type algorithms -- apply optimization to LEO (Ping, Curt, ….)

19. Publications (Articles/Proceedings, 2002-2003) articles/proceedings: 25 submitted/in preparation: 23 abstracts for upcoming meetings: 11

20. Publications (Articles/Proceedings, 2002-2003)

21. Publications (Articles/Proceedings, 2002-2003)

22. Publications (Submitted/In Preparation, 2002-2003)

23. Publications (Submitted/In Preparation, 2002-2003)

24. Publications (Submitted/In Preparation, 2002-2003)

25. Abstracts for Upcoming Meetings