4.7 Article

Derivation of High-Resolution Bathymetry from Multispectral Satellite Imagery: A Comparison of Empirical and Optimisation Methods through Geographical Error Analysis

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 7, Issue 12, Pages 16257-16273

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs71215829

Keywords

coral reef; landscape; WorldView-2; water depth; spatial error; Great Barrier Reef; Lizard Island; Sykes Reef

Funding

  1. University of Wollongong Return to Work Grant
  2. Lizard Island Research Station Fellowship Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The high importance of bathymetric character for many processes on reefs means that high-resolution bathymetric models are commonly needed by marine scientists and coastal managers. Empirical and optimisation methods provide two approaches for deriving bathymetry from multispectral satellite imagery, which have been refined and widely applied to coral reefs over the last decade. This paper compares these two approaches by means of a geographical error analysis for two sites on the Great Barrier Reef: Lizard Island (a continental island fringing reef) and Sykes Reef (a planar platform reef). The geographical distributions of model residuals (i.e., the difference between modelled and measured water depths) are mapped, and their spatial autocorrelation is calculated as a basis for comparing the performance of the bathymetric models. Comparisons reveal consistent geographical properties of errors arising from both models, including the tendency for positive residuals (i.e., an under-prediction of depth) in shallower areas and negative residuals in deeper areas (i.e., an over-prediction of depth) and the presence of spatial autocorrelation in model errors. A spatial error model is used to generate more reliable estimates of bathymetry by quantifying the spatial structure (autocorrelation) of model error and incorporating this into an improved regression model. Spatial error models improve bathymetric estimates derived from both methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available