Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335 ± 349

www.elsevier.com/locate/rse

A semianalytical approach to the calibration of AVIRIS data to

reflectance over water
application in a temperate estuary
John F. Mustard*, Matthew I. Staid, William J. Fripp
Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI USA
Received 27 January 2000; accepted 8 August 2000

Abstract

Calibration of at-sensor radiance to reflectance is a critical step for the use of remotely sensed hyperspectral data of water to determine the
concentrations of optically active components. Because water has such a low reflectance, sources of radiance other than the water-leaving
radiance contribute significantly to the at-sensor radiance and vary with wavelength and spatially. While radiative transfer models have
improved significantly, there are still large uncertainties in prescribing the spatial and spectral properties of aerosol scattering. In addition,
errors in the sensor calibration of radiance can lead to additional uncertainty. An atmospheric correction method based entirely on scene
information, but not in situ data, is described. This approach accounts for nonuniform aerosol scattering, glint from the water surface, and
reflected skylight. Normalization by an estimate of the direct solar irradiance reaching the surface, also derived from scene information, then
provides an estimate of reflectance. This method is applied to AVIRIS data acquired over a temperate estuary. The resultant reflectance
estimates are shown to be consistent with field observations. While the method is empirical, it is based on physical principles that allow it to
be applied under a wide range of conditions. D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Analytical modeling of the inherent optical properties of

Remotely sensed data of water with hyperspectral sen-
sors have the potential to provide a wealth of information
on the concentration of phytoplankton, dissolved organic
matter, and suspended sediment as well as basic informa-
tion on water clarity. Such information would provide great
benefits for understanding physical and biological pro-
cesses in coastal and estuarine systems. The advance that
hyperspectral sensors offer over multispectral systems
is that a continuous spectrum of the aquatic system
is acquired. These added data permit more sophisticated,
full spectral resolution models that allow greater precision
and accuracy in determining the inherent optical proper-
ties of water and the concentration of absorbing species
(e.g., Bukata, Jerome, Kondratyev, & Pozdnyakov, 1995;
Lee, Carder, Mobley, Steward, & Patch, 1999; Roesler &
Perry, 1995).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: john_mustard@brown.edu (J.F. Mustard).
water require a precise determination of the surface reflec-
tance. However, the radiance measured by airborne or
space-borne systems contains contributions from many
sources other than water that must be removed (e.g., atmo-
spheric path radiance, Fresnel reflections off the water
surface). Furthermore, the downwelling irradiance must be
determined to ratio to the radiance measured at any given
pixel. At blue wavelengths, the contributions from these
other sources may contribute in excess of 90% of the total
signal, while measurable radiances farther into the infrared
may be detected due to Fresnel reflectance. Under relatively
clear atmospheric conditions, some of these contributions
affect an image more or less uniformly (e.g., direct solar
illumination). Other contributions are spatially variable,
ranging from broad variations due to asymmetries in atmo-
spheric scattering to pixel by pixel variations due to reflec-
tions off wave facets.
Methods to convert the measured at-sensor radiances to
reflectance must account for these uniform and spatially
variable factors to be able to accurately apply analytical
models across a scene. A number of approaches have been
developed ranging from fully analytical atmospheric mod-

0034-4257/00/$ ± see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 3 4 - 4 2 5 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 7 7 - 2
336 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
els (e.g., Green, Conel, & Roberts, 1993) to vicarious
methods that incorporate field measurements concurrent
with remote data acquisitions and atmospheric models
(e.g., Carder et al., 1993) to fully empirical approaches
such as the empirical line method (e.g., Elvidge, 1988).
While analytical approaches that treat the atmosphere
explicitly will ultimately be the best approach, it is not
always possible to provide or solve for the complete range
of atmospheric and other variables required to derive an
accurate reflectance for such a dark target as water.
Furthermore, small inaccuracies in sensor radiance calibra-
tions may propagate through these calibrations and lead to
unacceptable errors in estimated reflectances.
In this article we develop a method for reflectance
calibration of hyperspectral data over water that is based
primarily on scene information. It takes advantage of
radiances measured of highly reflective, non-spectral
clouds and of water shaded by the direct beam of the
sun where the radiance is dominated by path radiance and
reflected diffuse sky irradiance. Reinersman, Carder, &
Chen (1998) developed a method based on illuminated
and shadowed water that was used to provide an indepen-
dent measurement of reflectance for satellite-sensor cali-
bration. While rigorous, this method still required accurate
model inputs as well as adjustment of the sensor calibra-
tion to match in situ measurements of reflectance and
radiance. The approach that we present here is rooted in
the fundamental interactions that are expected to occur
during the transit of electromagnetic radiation through the
atmosphere to the surface and back up to the sensor.
However, since all the information required to calibrate
the measured radiances to reflectance are derived from the
scene itself, or with minimal in situ/vicarious data, the
approach can be portable to many different locations with
relative ease. We show that it is possible to derive a
reasonable estimate of the reflectance of water in an
estuarine and near-shore environment that is consistent
with numerous in situ reflectance measurements. Further-
more, the quality of the data and the calibration are
sufficient to permit modeling of reflectance using inherent
optical properties.
Fig. 1. Generalized energy pathways that contribute to the measured at sensor radiance of AVIRIS.
2. Background
The at-sensor radiance measured by a remote sensing
system (Lsat) consists of several discrete sources (Fig. 1)
generally described by
ÿ

Lsat ˆ Lpath ‡ Tf Lglint ‡ Lw ‡ Lsky …1†
where Lpath is the path radiance or that portion of the
measured radiance due to atmospheric scattering, Lglint
and Lsky are due to direct solar and diffuse sky radiances,
respectively, reflected off the water surface, Lw is the
water leaving radiance, and Tf is the diffuse transmit-
tance of the atmosphere between the surface and the
sensor (see Table 1).
The key term in this equation for our purposes is Lw,
since this contains the results of absorption and scattering
in the water column. The other three terms are additive
to the at-sensor radiance and need to be removed to
isolate Lw. From Lw an estimate of the reflectance of the
water can be derived.
The ultimate goal in calibration is to estimate the
reflectance of water as accurately as possible across the
relevant and important wavelength ranges (typically 0.35±
0.8 mm). With reflectance, analytical and empirical models
that relate the concentrations of in-water constituents (e.g.,
phytoplankton, chlorophyll a, dissolved organic carbon, and
suspended sediment) to reflectance can be developed and
applied. Reflectance is generally defined as the ratio of light
from a surface or target to that incident upon it. However,
there is a range of specific types of reflectance that depend
on how the target and source energies are measured.
A number of analytical models for water reflectance are
formulated for volume reflectance (Rv) which is defined as
the ratio of upwelling irradiance to downwelling irradiance
measured just below the air ±water interface. While desir-
able, remote sensing systems measure radiance, and to
convert water-leaving radiance to upwelling irradiance
requires modeling with attendant assumptions and uncer-
tainties. The most commonly used definition of reflectance
for water remote sensing is remote sensing reflectance (Rrs)
 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
Table 1
List of Symbols and Their Definitions
Term Definition
E0 Solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere
Esky Downward diffuse sky irradiance
Ed Downwelling irradiance at the top the surface
Rv Volume reflectance
Rf Fresnel reflectance of water
Rrs Remote sensing reflectance
Rr Radiance reflectance
Lsat At-sensor radiance
Lw Water-leaving radiance
Lpath Path radiance
Radiance due to glint which is solar irradiance
Lglint specularly reflected from the water surface
Radiance due to reflected skylight which is sky irradiance
Lsky specularly reflected from the water surface
LsatB At-sensor radiance of a bright target
LsatD At-sensor radiance of a dark target
Tq Downward diffuse transmission of the atmosphere
Tf Upward diffuse transmission of the atmosphere
defined as the ratio of upwelling radiance to downwelling
irradiance. Similarly to Rv, Rrs cannot be measured directly
and the downwelling irradiance must be modeled using
knowledge of the prevailing atmospheric conditions at the
time of the measurement (e.g., Carder et al., 1993). Radi-
ance reflectance (Rr) is defined as the ratio of the upwelling
radiance to the radiance of a 100% reflective material
measured at the same viewing geometry. Rr may be more
easily determined from information within a remotely
sensed data set and then converted to Rrs using an under-
standing of the measurement conditions and the relation-
ships between these measurements.
Returning to Eq. (1), in order to arrive at an estimate of
Rr it is necessary to isolate Lw as well as derive an estimate
of the radiance (L0) reflected from a 100% reflective
lambertian surface for each pixel in the scene. While each
of the other terms in Eq. (1) is additive to the total measured
radiance, they are derived from different processes and have
different characteristics. Lpath is typically the largest con-
tribution to the measurement radiance in the short wave-
length portions of the visible, declining exponentially
toward longer wavelengths. Lpath is due to Raleigh scatter-
ing from atmospheric molecules as well as Mie scattering
due to aerosols and the sum total of this radiance generally
follows a l ÿ 4 dependence. While Raleigh scattering is well
understood and consistently present in remotely sensed data,
aerosol scattering is much more variable and highly depen-
dent on the characteristics of the aerosols and their distribu-
tion in the atmosphere. Because this is the dominant source
of radiance in the shorter wavelength region, small measure-
ment, calibration, and model errors lead to large errors in the
determination of Lw (e.g., Bukata et al., 1995; Gastil &
Melack, 1998).
While Lpath is typically the largest contribution to the
measured radiance over water, it is not spatially uniform
across a remotely sensed scene. This variability is related to
337
the differences in path length from the scene center to the
edges, as well as differences in the phase function for
Raleigh and aerosol scattering (Bukata et al., 1995). Never-
theless, it is expected that the variability in path radiance
will be a regular function of the observation and illumina-
tion viewing angles.
As mentioned above, Lsky refers to the radiance generated
by atmospheric scattering that is downwelled to the water
surface and reflected from it. This radiance contribution is
the result of diffuse sky irradiance (e.g., no specific direction
like the direct path of solar radiance), and the amount of sky
irradiance reflected from the water's surface is a relatively
simple function of the real part (n') of the complex index of
refraction of water. Since n' is relatively constant across the
wavelength region of interest, the contribution of Lsky to the
at-sensor radiance is typically modeled as the downwelling
sky irradiance multiplied by the Fresnel reflectivity of water
which is approximately 2% (Carder et al., 1993). Lsky is
attenuated by the diffuse transmittance of the atmosphere
between the surface and the satellite.
Lglint is due to the direct solar beam reflected off the
water surface. Since Lglint can overwhelm Lsat under unfa-
vorable viewing conditions, most remote sensing measure-
ments of water seek to constrain the viewing conditions
such that the solar elevation is between 35° and 50° as well
as for wind conditions of < 15 m/s. Contributions from glint
may be further reduced by having the sensor flown toward
or away from the sun. However, it is not always possible to
meet these conditions due to the characteristics of a field site
or scheduling. In addition, future orbiting instruments will
have fixed orbital paths and thus will not be able to orient
along the solar plane. Thus a general ability to recognize
and remove contributions from glint are required. While the
path radiance in a scene should exhibit a variable contribu-
tion that varies regularly with the viewing angles, glint is
expected to exhibit high variability on a pixel by pixel basis.
3. Methods of calibration
There are three basic approaches to the calibration of
hyperspectral remotely sensed data: atmospheric models,
empirical methods, and a model ±empirical hybrid. Atmo-
spheric models have been steadily improving and have been
employed with some success. The most robust approach is
that developed by Green et al. (1993), which is based on the
MODTRAN atmospheric model (Kneizys et al., 1987).
Among its strengths is that has been demonstrated to be
effective in separating atmospheric water vapor from leaf
water absorptions (Roberts, Green, & Adams, 1997). Green
et al. (1998) note that the average overall agreement
between MODTRAN calculations and AVIRIS measure-
ments for their well-characterized calibration site averages
> 96%. The residual uncertainty is a combination of model,
target, and instrument errors. Nevertheless, for both the
instrument and the models, the greatest uncertainty occurs
338 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
at the shorter wavelengths. Thus, for water applications, the
treatment of path and sky radiance is not as precise as
required for such applications. For example, Gastil and
Melack (1998) showed systematic differences between the
model estimates and field measurements that needed to be
corrected in order to derive their accurate measurements of
water reflectance. Similarly, Carder et al. (1993) used a
correction factor to match in situ radiance over water with
that predicted from a Lowtran 7 model in order to achieve a
robust calibration. One of the most widely used atmospheric
models is ATREM (Gao, Keidebrecht, & Goetz, 1993). As
with MODTRAN, however, the primary deficiencies are
with the short wavelength regions critical to accurate
determination of water reflectance. While atmospheric mod-
els are the preferred method for calibration, additional work
is required for regular and systematic application.
Empirical methods take advantage of ground information
to provide guidance for reflectance calibration. The most
commonly used approach is termed the Empirical Line
Method (Elvidge, 1988). Radiance data from two or more
regions of the surface that are fully resolved by the instru-
ment and for which field reflectance spectra have been
acquired are extracted. Provided that the reference sites
exhibit a range in albedo, the radiance measurements can
be regressed against the reference reflectance spectra to
estimate surface reflectance. While it is simple in concept
and has been used effectively, the principal drawbacks are
the requirements for well-characterized and spatially
resolved calibration sites in the field measured close in time
to the actual data collect and the fact that variations in path
Fig. 2. Location map showing the AVIRIS flight line used in this analysis.
length due to topography are not accommodated (Clark,
Swayze, Keidebrecht, Green, & Goetz, 1995). In addition,
small measurement errors propagate into regression errors
that result in magnified reflectance errors when resolving
spectral differences among very dark targets like water
(Mustard & Staid, 1998).
Hybrid methods use atmospheric models to accommo-
date the main atmospheric transmission and scattering con-
tributions on a pixel by pixel basis, and then refine the
reflectance calculation using reference reflectance spectra of
a limited number of known targets (e.g., Clark et al., 1999).
This approaches removes small artifacts caused by imper-
fect knowledge of sensor wavelength position and resolu-
tion. While sufficient for observations of bright targets with
relatively large spectral contrast, hybrid methods are still
limited in the precision and accuracy required for resolving
spectral differences among water bodies.
Another approach that has similarities to the hybrid
methods described above is the cloud-shadow approach
of Reinersman et al. (1998). Reinersman et al. (1998) used
the difference in radiance between fully illuminated water
and water that is shadowed by clouds to constrain the
water-leaving radiance for the illuminated water. By sub-
tracting the radiance from the shadowed region and cor-
recting for some second-order effects, most of the
atmospheric effects are removed leaving radiance domi-
nated by solar photons backscattered from beneath the
water surface. An estimate of Rrs is then provided by
dividing the water-leaving radiance by the downwelling
irradiance provided by the Lowtran 7 model. The authors
 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
argue that this provides an independent estimate of water
reflectance that can be used in testing the calibration of the
sensor. Carder, Carder, and Weigle (1997) used the shadow
339
of a low-flying blimp to correct for path radiance and
reflected skylight in multispectral video data. They
employed a ratio of the radiance measured in the shadow
to glint to achieve this result.
In the following section, we develop methods to deter-
mine the key radiance components in Eq. (1) as measured
by the Airborne Visible to InfraRed Imaging Spectrometer
(AVIRIS) (Green et al., 1998) and to use these radiances to
determine an estimate of water reflectance. These methods
are based on a basic understanding of the sources and
expected properties of the radiance terms, but are derived
primarily from the scene itself. The approach shares simila-
rities to that of Reinersman et al. (1998) in that the
difference in radiance between illuminated and shadowed
water are exploited to arrive and an atmospheric correction.
However, the approaches differ in that no modeling is
required for the methods presented here. It is also similar
to the methods advocated by Carder et al. (1997) except that
we employ radiances of clouds to determine the down-
welling irradiance while they employed glint measurements
to achieve the same result. In addition, Carder et al. (1997)
used 3-band video data while we apply this approach to
hyperspectral data.
4. Application to aviris data
The goal of calibration is to provide the best estimate of
reflectance from calibrated hyperspectral radiance data. In
this analysis we use AVIRIS data. Radiometrically corrected
data were provided by the AVIRIS Data Facility. Data were
acquired as 12-bit and converted to radiance in units of
microwatts per square centimeter per nanometer per ster-
adian, or mW/(cm2 nm sr), using inflight and ground
calibration files. AVIRIS radiometric calibration factors
are calculated by measuring the response of AVIRIS to an
integrating sphere (a known target illuminated by a known
light source). This calibration is reported to be accurate to
within 7%, absolute, over time while intraflight accuracy is
within 2% (Green et al., 1998). While this performance is
extremely good, a 7% absolute error could result in errors in
the measurement of Lw as high as 70% since 90% of the
measured radiance at short wavelengths is due to the atmo-
sphere. The data used in this analysis were obtained of
Fig. 3. At sensor radiance image of the AVIRIS flight line measured at a
wavelength of 0.51 mm. Land surfaces, clouds, and large boats have been
masked. The dominant patterns of light and dark observed in the water are
due to variable concentrations of backscattering material, likely suspended
sediment. Obvious patterns of glint are noted, and the slight brightening
observed over the western half of the image (most notable in the south) is
due to nonuniform path radiance. Box locations labeled 1 ± 4 indicate
where field data have been collected and correspond to: 1) Coastal Water,
2) Lower Estuary, 3) Middle Estuary, and 4) Upper Estuary. Box loca-
tions labeled A ± C indicate where transects from deep to shallow water
were extracted.
340 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349

Narragansett Bay on 19 August 1997 at 11:01 on a flight

path generally oriented north ± south (Fig. 2). The solar
elevation angle was 52.0° and the solar azimuth was 141°.
The overall quality of the data is extremely good, with
signal-to-noise of between 500:1 and 1000:1 across the
wavelength region from the visible to the near-infrared
(Green et al., 1998). The field site imaged by the AVIRIS
instrument in the spectral channel 0.58 mm is shown in
Figure 3.

5. Identification and removal of nonuniform path

radiance and glint

Optimal view conditions for water targets include sun

elevations between 35° and 50° and orientation of the
sensor toward or away from the sun. Unfortunately, it is
not always possible to achieve these conditions and thus
methods to identify and correct for extraneous radiance
contributions are essential. Several such effects are
observed in the AVIRIS observations under consideration
here, illustrated in Figure 3. In the offshore region, glint off
ocean swells can clearly been seen along the eastern
boundary of the image, as well as nonuniform bright
regions in the estuary that are suggestive of glint off more
smooth water. Glint off waves and smooth water is not
observed west of the nadir observations (center of the
image). At wavelengths longer than 0.75 mm these patterns
of brightness persist and can in fact be observed throughout
the wavelength coverage of AVIRIS. A subtle overall
brightening is observed from east to west across the scene.
This is much more evident at shorter wavelengths and is
not observed for wavelengths greater than approximately
0.8 mm.
Both these effects can also be illustrated with radiance
spectra extracted from the scene, shown in Figure 4. These
spectra were extracted from the southern part of the scene
where the optical properties of the water exhibit little to no
variation. In Figure 4a, radiance extracted from areas that
exhibited relatively greater amounts of path radiance, rela-
tively lesser amounts of path radiance, and relatively greater
amounts of glint are plotted on a linear vertical scale of
radiance, but a logarithmic horizontal scale of wavelength to
highlight differences in the short wavelength region of the
spectrum. Note that the areas with glint and relatively high
path radiance have approximately equal radiance at 0.5 mm,
but different values at longer wavelengths. Likewise the
spectrum with relatively lesser path radiance is very different
from both the other spectra near 0.5 mm, but virtually identical
to the spectrum with a greater amount of path radiance at 1.0
mm. If not taken into account on a pixel by pixel basis, these
differences can translate into extremely large and erroneous
differences in reflectance. The effect of glint on measured
water radiance is best illustrated in Figure 4b. Here the same
radiance data are plotted with a linear wavelength scale to 2.5
mm but a logarithmic radiance scale. While all the spectra
Fig. 4. Radiance spectra extracted over the relatively homogenous waters at
the southern end of the AVIRIS data. Both a) and b) show the same data
plotted with different scales. Since the optical properties are homogenous,
the differences observed are due to variable sources of radiance from glint
and path radiance.
show approximately equivalent radiance in the visible, the
spectrum affected by glint shows a factor of 5± 10 greater
radiance at wavelengths greater than 1.5 mm.
Path radiance observed by AVIRIS is expected to be
nonuniform across the scene due to forward and backward
scattering in the atmosphere as well as the differences in
path length from the nadir view at the scene center to the
15° viewing angle at the scene edges. The variation in path
radiance simply due to the path length differences is
expected to be inversely proportional to the cos(e), where
e is the viewing angle (angle between the sensor and the
surface normal). Variations due to forward and backward
scattering are described by the Raleigh and aerosol phase
functions (Gordon et al., 1983). While the phase functions
can be complex, the Raleigh phase function is proportional
to cos2( g), where g is the scattering, or phase angle between
the direction of direct solar radiation and the viewing angle
of the sensor. Thus, to first order the nonuniform path
radiance should be a regular function of the phase angle
and the viewing angle, and should be proportional to
cos2( g)/cos(e).
 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
For the Narragansett Bay flight line, with a north ± south
flight path, solar elevation of 52°, and solar azimuth of 141°,
the phase angle varies from 45° along the eastern edge to
27° along the western edge. The ratio of cos2( g)/cos(e) for
these angles and the north ±south flight line is approxi-
mately linear as a function of the cross-track pixel, and thus
the contribution of path radiance should vary linearly across
the scene. This is in fact what is observed. Shown in Figure
5 is a profile of the 0.45 mm radiance extracted across the
scene over a homogeneous region of water which is not
affected by glint along with the ratio of cos2( g)/cos(e). The
ratio values are approximately linear across this phase angle
range, with a slight increase in the ratio toward small phase
angles. It is also evident that the radiance values show a
similar trend, with an approximately linear relationship with
phase angle across most of the range, with a slight increase
toward smaller phase angles. To first order, this trend is well
approximately by a linear function.
Since the magnitude of this contribution of path radiance
is a regular function of phase angle, and since it is due to
atmospheric scattering and thus not dependent on the
reflectivity of the ground, it can be removed systematically
from all the pixels in the scene. However, this additional
radiance will change as a function of wavelength. To
accommodate the spectral variability, we derive an estimate
of the relative magnitude of the nonuniform path radiance
by extracting radiance spectra over water from two regions
of the scene that have apparently uniform optical properties
not affected by glint, but that are observed under different
phase angle conditions. The high phase angle spectrum is
subtracted from the low phase angle spectrum to derive an
estimate of the spectral properties of this path radiance. The
derived radiance is then scaled according to the relative
positions of the high and low phase angle spectra along the
path radiance gradient. For example, if the low phase angle
spectrum was extracted from the smallest angle and the high
phase angle spectrum was extracted from a location half
Fig. 5. Profile of 0.45 mm radiance measured over water as a function of
phase angle (cross-track in Fig. 3) for a region with relatively homogenous
optical properties compared with a function that describes the general
magnitude of aerosol and molecular scattering expected for the specific
viewing geometry of the AVIRIS scene. Note that the radiance varies by as
much as 25% for these observed phase angles.
341
Fig. 6. Radiance spectra derived from the AVIRIS scene used to correct for
nonuniform path radiance and glint.
way to the highest phase angle, the derived spectrum would
be divided by 0.5 to scale it. The estimated nonuniform
radiance for the radiance spectra shown in Figure 4 is shown
in Figure 6.
This approach therefore uses the scene information to
derive the estimate of varying path radiance, but the
magnitude of the correction is consistent with the known
characteristics of atmospheric scattering. It is not necessary
that the locations used to derive the corrective spectrum
span the maximum range of observed scattering since it can
be scaled, as long as the variation in this relative path
radiance term is linear or can be modeled as a function of
phase angle or cross-track pixel. More importantly, since the
estimate of this path radiance is derived from the scene
itself, it is not subject to modeling errors, uncertainty in the
paramterization of atmospheric scattering, or inaccuracies in
the absolute calibration of the AVIRIS radiance data. It does
depend, however, on the signal to noise of the sensor,
homogeneity of aerosols along the flight line, and the
assumption of homogeneity of optical properties between
the water bodies used to derive the path radiance correction.
The effect of glint on the measured radiance, as shown
in Figure 4, is to raise the overall radiance across the entire
wavelength range. Glint is due to direct reflection of solar
irradiance off the water surface and is controlled by the
relatively simple Fresnel interaction. As such, the reflected
radiance carries no spectral information due to volume
scattering in the water. In addition, since the refractive
index of water is relatively constant across visible to near-
infrared wavelengths, the magnitude of the reflected radi-
ance should be directly proportional to the incident solar
irradiance across the wavelength range. After calibration of
the radiance data to reflectance, glint should result in a
constant, additive increase in reflectance across the entire
wavelength range.
It is a relatively simple exercise to remove glint by
identifying the magnitude of the contribution from a wave-
length region where the reflectance of water should be
effectively 0 (e.g., at 1.0 mm). This value would then be
342 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
subtracted from every wavelength in the calibrated reflec-
tance data. Alternatively, a method similar to that employed
for the variable path radiance could be used. In this case, an
estimate of the spectral properties of glint can be derived by
subtracting the radiance spectrum of a region unaffected by
glint from the radiance of a region which exhibits a large
contribution from glint. The resulting difference spectrum is
then the estimate of the spectral properties of glint. The
estimated contribution of glint for the radiance spectra
shown in Figure 4 is presented in Figure 6. In contrast to
the estimated path radiance spectrum, the estimated glint
spectrum mimics the general spectral properties of the solar
irradiance spectrum. The estimated contribution of glint to
each pixel can then be estimated by using a wavelength
region where the spectral properties of water should effec-
tively be 0 (e.g., 1.0 mm).
The visual effects of the removal of both nonuniform
path radiance and glint are shown in Figure 7 for the 0.58
mm wavelength in a portion of the AVIRIS image near the
mouth of Narragansett Bay. While the effects of glint are
clearly observed in the wave patterns in the offshore regions
Fig. 7. An image of the measured at sensor 0.58 mm radiance (left) compared to the same data after correction for non-uniform path radiance and glint.
of the image, it is not so evident that glint exists in the
estuarine regions. After correction for path radiance and
glint, it is clear that there were significant regions of the bay
affected by glint. Note, however, that the glint correction
primarily affects regions to the east of the nadir point, which
is expected for the viewing geometry of this scene.
6. Calibration to reflectance
The characterization and removal of the nonuniform
radiance contributions then permits approaches to be applied
to estimate reflectance from the radiance measurements.
Estimation of reflectance over water bodies is complicated
due to the relatively large contributions of path radiance
compared to water leaving radiance. Small errors in calcu-
lating and removing this component is not such a large
problem with bright targets, but can lead to large inaccura-
cies for dark targets like water. Furthermore, the contribu-
tions from reflected sky irradiance compound these issues.
 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
Assuming that the nonuniform contributions of path
radiance and glint have been removed, the generic radiative
transfer equation for radiance measured over water for nadir
views is given by
Rv   Esky Rf Tf
Lsat ˆ Tf T E0 cos ‡ Esky ‡ Lpath ‡ ; …2†
p p
where Rv is the volume reflectance of water, E0 is the
irradiance at the top of the atmosphere, Esky is the
downward diffuse sky irradiance, Rf is the fresnel
reflectance of water, and Tq and Tf are the downward
and upward diffuse transmissions of the atmosphere
respectively. The key objective we have is to estimate Rv.
Over water, Esky, Rf, and Lpath are convolved as an additive
term while Esky inside the brackets results in a relatively
minor contribution to the volume reflectance. While
radiative transfer solutions to Eq. (2) have been used
successfully to derive Rv, these approaches nevertheless
include in situ data to correct for sensor and model errors
(e.g., Carder et al., 1993; Reinersman et al., 1998) as well
as require knowledge of the atmospheric conditions and
sea state. The method developed below instead utilizes
bright and dark components of the scene to estimate path
radiance as well as the radiance expected from a 100%
reflective material to derive reflectance independent of in
situ data and vicarious calibration.
Empirical methods for reflectance calibration have com-
monly used scene information to estimate the magnitude of
the additive path radiance. These approaches typically use a
dark object from the scene and assume that the reflectance is
close to zero. However, this approach cannot be used when
investigating water, since water is commonly the darkest
material. Consider instead the ratio between a dark object
such as water and a bright object of uniform spectral
properties without significant absorptions. An ideal bright
object would be 100% reflective surface. While such targets
do not exist, cumulous clouds are relatively lambertian in
their scattering and exhibit no strong absorptions in the
visible-near infrared. The maximum reflectance of a cloud,
however, is approximately 65%. The consequences of this
assumption will be discussed later. An ideal dark object
would be a 0% reflective surface. Again, such objects do not
exist, but water that is shadowed by an optically thick cloud
provides a target that begins to approach this ideal. If we
assume that the volume reflectance of shadowed water is
0% and the reflectance of the cloud is 100%, then the ratio
of the two can be written as
LsatD Lpath ‡ Tf Rf Esky =p
ˆ ; …
LsatB Tf Ed =p ‡ Lpath
where LsatD is the at-sensor radiance of the dark object,
LsatB is the at-sensor radiance of the bright object, and Ed
is the downwelling irradiance (both direct and diffuse) at
the surface. At this point we can ignore the irradiance at
the top of the atmosphere since we are using radiance
343
measurements from the scene where are being reflected
from near the bottom of the atmosphere. If the dark target
has a reflectance of 0%, then the radiance measured at the
sensor is simply due to path radiance and fresnel reflected
sky irradiance. In contrast, radiance measured over the
bright target is controlled by Ed, which is dominated by
the direct solar beam. Furthermore, the attenuation of
solar irradiance in this wavelength region is controlled by
Raleigh and aerosol scattering. Since the absorptions are
relatively weak, the majority of the attenuated irradiance
is converted to path radiance and thus Lpath is propor-
tional to (E0 ÿ E0Tq)/p. We propose that, to first order, the
reduction in radiance from the surface to the sensor
compared to the downwelling irradiance at the surface
measured over a 100% reflective target is compensated by
the input to the sensor from path radiance. In other words,
the at-sensor radiance measured over a 100% reflective
lambertian target is approximately Ed/p. The consequences
of this assumption will be discussed later. Given these
two approximations, the ratio shown in Eq. (3) can be
simplified to
LsatD Lpath ‡ Rf Esky =p
 : …4†
LsatB Ed =p
If these assumptions and approximations are correct, then
the ratio given in Eq. (4) will be a direct function of the path
radiance in the scene and the reflected sky irradiance. The
radiance of a shadowed water as a dark target will also
contain a small contribution from volume reflectance,
though this will be negligible beyond 750 nm.
Shown in Figure 8 are examples of ratios of radiance
between a) water shadowed by a cloud and b) illuminated
water far from clouds, to a highly reflective, optically dense
cloud. We examined a number of different regions from the
AVIRIS scenes and the examples shown are typical. Also
shown are the curves for the expected Raleigh (l ÿ 4.15) and
aerosol scattering (l ÿ 1). The ratio spectra are plotted from
3†
Fig. 8. Ratios of the radiance measured over three different regions of the
Narragansett Bay AVIRIS scene (fully illuminated water and two regions in
the shadows of clouds) compared to the general scattering curves expected
from molecular or Raleigh scattering (l ÿ 4.15) and aerosol scattering (l ÿ 1).
344 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
0.4 mm to 2.4 mm with the regions of strong atmospheric
absorptions removed. Data shortward of 0.4 mm are of poor
quality and will not be considered further. Note that the
illuminated water shows a greater ratio value than the
shadowed water in the 0.5 ±0.7 mm wavelength region. This
is due to volume reflectance in the illuminated water from
downwelling solar and diffuse irradiance. While the sha-
dowed water is not expected to exhibit a component of
volume reflectance due to direct solar irradiance, some
volume reflectance is expected due to diffuse irradiance,
most well expressed in the same wavelength region.
Note the general shape of the ratio spectra shown in
Figure 8 approximate that expected for the transmission of
the atmosphere due to the combined effects of Raleigh and
aerosol scattering. Raleigh scattering is well known to
follow a l ÿ 4.15 dependence while aerosol scattering
exhibits a more diverse range of wavelength dependencies
ranging from l0 to l ÿ 2..5. The exact properties of the
aerosol scattering depend on the composition, size, dis-
tribution, and shape of the aerosol particles. The difficulty
in specifying the exact nature of the aerosols and their
scattering leads to the largest errors in the modeling this
atmospheric component.
Since the numerators of the ratio spectra shown in
Figure 8 were obtained over water, the resultant ratios are
expected to also contain a component of fresnel reflected
sky irradiance [Eq. (4)]. However, the sky irradiance is
expected to have the same general properties of path
radiance (e.g., spectral shape as a function of wavelength),
and the fresnel reflectance of water is well approximated as
a constant across visible to near-infrared wavelengths
(Carder et al., 1993). Thus, to first order, the convolution
of path radiance and reflected sky irradiance is linear and
would result in an enhancement of the curves shown in
Figure 8.
Given that the ratio between low albedo water and highly
reflective clouds should be dominated by path radiance and
approximate the spectral properties of Raleigh and aerosol
scattering, it should be possible to fit the resultant ratios
with a function of the form:
C1 C2 C3
Tp … l † ˆ 4:15
‡ 2‡ ; …5†
l l l Figure 10. While this approach to estimating the critical path
where C1, C2, and C3 are constants to be determined
interactively or analytically. Volume reflectance may
contribute to the ratio across the wavelength region from
0.4 mm to 0.7 mm. This is evident in comparing the ratio
from illuminated water to the ratio from shadowed water.
The illuminated water ratio spectrum shows a stronger
departure from the overall transmission-like curve than the
shadowed water. Thus, the fitting of Eq. (5) to the ratio
spectra should approximate the lower convex hull, and
primarily at wavelengths longer than 0.7 mm. A representa-
tive fit of Eq. (5) to the ratio spectra is shown in Figure 9.
Note that the fit is best with the shadowed water and
between wavelengths 0.4± 1.0 mm. At longer wavelengths,
Fig. 9. The same radiance ratio spectra shown in Figure 8 fit with an
approximation to the path radiance scattering function. The fit is to the
lower convex hull of the radiance ratio spectra.
the data become more affected by lower signal to noise, and
also the amount of path radiance has diminished signifi-
cantly. Nevertheless, the shadowed water shows some
component of volume reflectance of sky irradiance between
0.5 mm and 0.7 mm.
This fit then provides a means to estimate the Raleigh
and aerosol path radiance, as well as the contribution to the
measured radiance from reflected sky irradiance. This is
accomplished by multiplying the curve fit to the ratio
spectra shown in Figure 9 by the original radiance measure-
ments of the bright, lambertian scattering cloud. At the same
time, as discussed above, we propose the cloud radiance
spectrum provides a good first-order approximation of the
direct solar irradiance at the surface. Thus, to calculate the
radiance reflectance, Eq. (6) is applied:
L…l†sat ÿL…l†path
Rr…l† ˆ ; …6†
L…l†0
where Rr is the estimated radiance reflectance, L * path is the
estimated path radiance, and L * 0 is the estimated down-
welling irradiance reflected from a bright surface of uniform
and high reflectance. A simple estimate of remote sensing
reflectance is achieved by dividing the Rr(l) by p. The
resultant estimated values for L * path and L * 0 are shown in
radiance contributions over water is relatively simple, it is
based on the basic principles of radiative transfer.
The net result of these calculations is to derive calibration
coefficients in the form of an offset term (L * path) and a gain
term (L * 0) to convert the measured radiance to an estimate
of reflectance. This is analogous to the empirical line
method where the bright object is assumed to be 100%
reflective and nonspectral and the dark object 0% reflective
and also nonspectral. It differs in that the spectral properties
of the dark target are derived through the use of the dark/
bright spectral ratio which is fit with a function that con-
forms to the expected spectral characteristics of molecular
and aerosol scattering.
 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349 345

The assumption that the cloud reflects downwelling

irradiance with 100% efficiency results in errors in the
magnitude of the estimated reflectance but not in the
spectral shape. This can be demonstrated with radiance
spectra selected from a number of clouds in the AVIRIS
data that span a range of brightness (a function of their size
and optical depth), and two water spectra (one shadowed,
one fully illuminated). Procedures identical to those
described above were used to derive L * path and L * 0 for
each cloud spectrum using the same shadowed water
spectrum and applied to the illuminated water spectrum.
Thus separate pairs of L * path and L * 0 are derived for each
cloud spectrum. The results are shown in Figure 11. In
Figure 11a note that each cloud has a different radiance, and
in Figure 11b the derived reflectance is brighter for the
clouds with the lower radiance. However, upon normal-
ization to the reflectance at 0.56 mm, the derived reflectance
spectra have nearly identical values, indicating that the
spectral shapes are preserved. Thus, although the absolute
value of reflectance is dependent on the assumptions of the
cloud reflectance properties, because the spectral shape is
preserved analytical approaches that depend on the relative
reflectance properties (e.g., ratios, spectral parameters) will
not be affected by this assumption. Those that depend on the
absolute value of reflectance, however, will be affected
unless the reflectance properties of the cloud are accom- Fig. 11. a) radiance of three example clouds used to compute reflectance. b)
modated. Since the effect is scalar, the estimated spectra Reflectance resulting from assuming the clouds in a) are 100% reflective as
would only need to be divided by the reflectance of the well as reflectance normalized to 1. 0 at 0.56 mm. The normalized spectra
cloud to arrive at a more accurate reflectance. show that spectra shape is preserved by this calibration method.
Inaccuracies in the assumption that the attenuation of
radiance from the surface to the sensor is compensated by water. Alternatively, if the assumption results in an over-
path radiance between the surface and sensor [Eq. (4)] may estimate of the path radiance or if the path radiance is
affect the spectral shape primarily between 0.4 mm and 0.6 greater than the attenuation of radiance between the cloud
mm. If this results in an underestimate of the path radiance, and sensor, then the estimated reflectance will be too low in
or that the attenuation of radiance between the cloud and the the blue wavelengths. This will appear as increased absorp-
sensor is not adequately compensated by the path radiance, tion with spectral properties similar to color dissolved
then the resulting reflectance will be overestimate at blue organic matter or phytoplankton.
wavelengths. This will result in spectral properties that are
similar to strongly colored backscattering components in the
7. Resultant reflectance

The sequence of calibration steps developed in this

Fig. 10. Estimated solar and path radiance spectra used to determine
reflectance through Eq. (6)
article were applied to the AVIRIS data for Narragansett
Bay. Ideally, an evaluation of the calibration would include
comparisons to reflectance spectra acquired in the field
concurrently with the acquisition of the AVIRIS data. This
was unfortunately not possible during the acquisition of the
1997 data. However, we have been systematically collecting
field reflectance spectra for four sites within the Bay over
the last year. The sites are located along a gradient in the
optical properties of the bay ranging from highly productive,
chlorophyll-rich waters of the upper bay to the less produc-
tive and optically distinct waters outside of the bay. While
the spectra do exhibit variability with time, each region
exhibits a relatively consistent spectral shape that is distinct
from the other regions.
346 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349

The in situ reflectance data were acquired with an
Analytical Spectral Devices Personal Spectrometer II which
covers the wavelength region 0.35 ±1.05 mm. Reflectance
was calculated using the methods of Carder and Steward
(1985). Briefly, the instrument integration time was set to
maximize the detector response of solar radiance reflected
from a neutral gray target of 20% absolute reflectance. The
instrument was adjusted for the dark current bias, and then
three main elements of the light field were sampled: diffuse
radiance from the water (Lw), diffuse radiance from a region
of the sky (Lsky), and diffuse radiance from the gray, neutral
target (Lgray). Reflectance is then calculated by Eq. (7):
 
Lw ÿ 0:02  Lsky
Rr ˆ  Rgray …
Lgray
where Rr is the calculated radiance reflectance and Rgray is
the absolute reflectance of the gray panel. The value of
0.02 is the average fresnel reflectance of water for a diffuse
sky irradiance.
Representative spectra from the four field sites are shown
in Figure 12 along with AVIRIS spectra from the same
general regions extracted from the 1997 calibrated data set.
Spectra from the coastal waters, an offshore site, are typical
of coastal or fjord type waters while the spectra from the
other three stations are typical of estuarine type waters (e.g.,
Roesler & Perry, 1995). A good agreement is observed
between the field spectra and the remote acquired data. The
general progression observed in the spectra properties from
the coast to the upper estuary is toward stronger absorption
due to phytoplankton in the 0.35 ± 0.56 mm wavelength
region and lower overall reflectance. In addition, the site
farthest up the estuary exhibits enhanced reflectance
between 0.675 mm and 0.725 mm due to solar stimulated
7†
chlorophyll fluorescence (Roesler & Perry, 1995). The
upper estuary and coastal waters exhibit the lowest reflec-
tance, while the lower estuary exhibits the highest reflec-
tance. The higher reflectance in the lower estuary is likely
due to sediment that has become suspended due to scouring
by tides. Thus the key diagnostic changes in reflectance

Fig. 12. Comparisons between field measurements of above-water reflectance and the reflectance estimated for the AVIRIS data using the methods developed
in this article. The field data and AVIRIS data were not obtained at the same time, although the field spectra are representative of the spectral properties of the
four regions used in the comparison. See text for details.
 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349 347

observed in the field spectra are faithfully reproduced in the

AVIRIS reflectance spectra.
Ideally, an exhaustive sampling of the waters of Narra-
gansett Bay with in situ sensors concurrent with the
AVIRIS overflight would be used to assess the accuracy
of the calibration. Nevertheless, our field observations
indicate that the optical properties of Narragansett Bay
show a consistent gradient through time from the phyto-
plankton-rich waters of the upper estuary to the less-rich
waters of the coastal ocean. This is consistent with
intensive study of the bay by Kremmer and Nixon
(1978) and recent systematic observations of its physical
and biological properties (Berman & Deacutis, 1999).
Therefore, the relatively simple approach to calibration
based completely on scene-derived information, but not
dependent on in situ or ground truth observations, is
capable of providing an accurate first-order estimate of
reflectance of water.

8. Diversity in optical properties

While the four systematically sampled sites provide a

good measure of the accuracy of the AVIRIS reflectance
calibration, it is also worthwhile examining the diversity in
types of water reflectance exhibited in these data and the
types of information that might be derived. Water reflec-
tance is controlled by the concentrations of phytoplankton,
colored dissolved organic matter, suspended sediment, sub-
strate reflectance in shallow water, and the fundamental
absorption and scattering properties of water itself. Many
researchers have examined the complex problem of decon-
volving the contributions of these components to the mea-
sured reflectance and a number of analytical models exist
(e.g., Bukata et al., 1995; Lee, Carder, Peacock, Davis, &
Mueller, 1996; Roesler & Perry, 1995; Zaneveld, 1995). In
general, the reflectance is a ratio of the total contributions
from backscattering to the total contributions from absorp-
tion. Deconvolution of a reflectance spectrum to the con-
centration of absorbing and scattering constituents is thus a
nonlinear problem and the subject of current research. The
range of optical properties exhibited in Narragansett Bay
provide an excellent opportunity to test models under a
variety of conditions in a small area.
As discussed above, variations in sediment and phyto-
plankton concentrations control the majority of the differ-
ences between the spectra shown in Figure 12. However,
this limited sampling fails to capture the diversity of spectral
water types observed in the AVIRIS data. Shown in Figure
13 are examples of spectra that exhibit more extreme
variations in phytoplankton and suspended sediment con-
centration. In Narragansett Bay erosion and suspension of
bottom sediment due to tides are a common phenomenon in
the middle reaches of the estuary. For example, a distinct
plume of estuarine water with suspended sediment entrained
can be observed at the mouth of the western arm of
Fig. 13. Examples of variations exhibited in the calibrated AVIRIS scene.
The plot on top shows reflectance variations caused in part by differences in
the concentration of suspended sediment while the plot below shows
variations caused by differences in phytoplankton concentration. The large
peak between 0.675 mm and 0.75 mm is due to fluorescence.
Narragansett Bay in Figure 7. The spectra shown in Figure
13 are from a transect that crosses this plume. The effects of
increasing concentrations of suspended sediment are to
increase the backscattering from water and thus increase
the overall reflectance, but nonlinearly. For example, the
differences in reflectance at 0.55 mm are greater than at 0.7
mm, and this is a well-known effect of the rapid changes in
the absorption properties of water between 0.6 mm and 0.9
mm (e.g., Pope & Fry, 1997; Reinersman et al., 1998). The
effects of large concentrations of phytoplankton are illu-
strated in Figure 13 where spectra from eutrophic fresh
water and brackish ponds are compared to typical upper
estuarine water. At typical estuarine concentrations, increas-
ing the amount of phytoplankton primarily results in
increased absorption. Also, between 0.625 mm and 0.725
mm there is a variable component of the measured reflec-
tance due to fluorescence. However, as the concentrations
increase to very high concentrations such as in eutrophic
ponds, the phytoplankton contribute to backscattering, as
well as very high amounts of fluorescence. Such spectra are
very unique and indicative of environmental problems that
could be identified remotely.
348 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
The last example illustrates the effects of bottom reflec-
tion on the observed water reflectances. Bottom effects are
well known to impact water observations, and a number of
analytical models exist to account for these effects (e.g.,
Carder et al., 1993; Lee et al., 1999). Calibrated spectra
from a diverse optical environment like Narragansett Bay
would provide a good test of such models. Several transects
from deep to shallow water in a range of environments are
shown in Figure 14. The dominant effect is similar to that
Fig. 14. Examples of variations exhibited in the calibrated AVIRIS scene
due primarily to decreasing the water depth. In each example, the optical
properties of the water have not changed, only the depth of the water. The
three examples illustrate the same effects but with water of differing optical
properties overlying the bottom.
shown in Figure 13 for varying concentrations of suspended
sediment. This is to be expected since analytically the
observed reflectance is directly proportional to the bottom
reflectance modified by the optical depth properties of the
overlying water column (Carder et al., 1993) while the
presence of suspended sediment in the water will increase
the amount of backscattering. The similarity of the trends,
however, raises the question whether separation of bottom
effects from suspended sediment will be possible in com-
plex estuarine environments.
9. Conclusions
While remote sensing of ocean water has progressed
rapidly over the last decade, our understanding of coastal
and inland waters still poses may important challenges.
Global observations from the SeaWiFS program has demon-
strated that multispectral observations can be used to accu-
rately estimate phytoplankton concentrations over Case I
waters. However, for Case II waters, it is likely that high
spectral resolution sensors will be needed to accurately
deconvolve the complex convolution of signals measured
remotely. Deconvolution approaches require an accurate
estimate of reflectance.
Because water is such a dark substance, it is important
that all extraneous sources of radiance not related to volume
reflectance of water be understood, characterized, and
removed. For the particular viewing geometries and geo-
graphic location of this study, large extraneous sources of
radiance were contributed from viewing-angle-dependent
path radiance and glint. The nonuniform path radiance
exhibited systematic variations with viewing angle expected
for the phase-angle dependence of path radiance, and thus
could be readily removed. Glint, on the other hand, is highly
variable and dependent on wind speed, the length and height
of waves, and viewing geometry. Nevertheless, the spectral
properties of glint are simply a function of the reflected solar
irradiance, and the magnitude of this contribution can be
identified and separated from path radiance using the
extended wavelength range of the AVIRIS sensor. While
the specific properties and distributions of the nonuniform
radiance and glint were specific to the scene analyzed, the
methods used were based on physical principles and can be
generalized and extended to other observations under dif-
ferent conditions.
We demonstrated here that accurate estimates of reflec-
tance can be derived from hyperspectral data over water
targets using only scene information. This is potentially
important since it obviates the need to exactly match model
and sensor radiance and allows the full precision of a sensor
to be exploited. The most problematic aspects of analytical
approaches to reflectance calibration for water are inaccura-
cies in the absolute measurement of radiance by the sensor
and uncertainties in spectral properties of aerosols. The
approach developed here exploits the fact that the radiance
 J.F. Mustard et al. / Remote Sensing of Environment 75 (2001) 335±349
over dark objects is dominated by path radiance while over
bright targets it is dominated by solar irradiance. Thus the
ratio of dark to bright provides a first-order estimate of the
transmission due to the combined effects of molecules and
aerosols in the atmosphere. This itself may provide a benefit
in determining aerosol properties analytically.
Although the final calculation of reflectance took advan-
tage of optically thick cumulous clouds present in the scene,
other bright targets with neutral spectral properties can play
a similar role, especially if the spectral properties of the
targets are known or can be estimated using suitable analy-
tical calibration approaches (e.g., Gao et al., 1993; Green et
al., 1993). Errors introduced by this approach are possible in
two catagories: spectral and nonspectral. The assumption
that the attenuation of radiance from the cloud top to the
sensor is compensated by the addition of path radiance to the
sensor can result in spectral errors. These errors will have a
form that increasing or decreasing reflectance as a function
of wavelength and will appear as increased absorption or
scattering in analytical models. The use of clouds for the
bright targets assumes that they are 100% reflective. This
results in an error in reflectance that is scalar. In other words,
the estimated reflectance is related to the absolute reflec-
tance by a multiplicative factor that is constant as a function
of wavelength and is thus nonspectral. Nevertheless, analy-
tical methods that rely on spectral shape (e.g. spectral ratios)
will be unaffected by this error.
Acknowledgments
Support from NASA's Commercial Remote Sensing
program (NAG13-39) is gratefully acknowledged as well as
the expert operation and calibration of the AVIRIS sensor by
the AVIRIS experiment team. In addition, we wish to thank
Jim Yoder, Warren Prell, Steve Clemens, and Darryl Keith
for logistical support and thoughtful discussions and the
insightful comments of an anonymous reviewer.
References
Berman, M. S., & Deacutis. C. (1999), A cooperative study of Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island, USA, Abstract, American Society of Limnology and
Oceanography. Aquatic Science Meeting.
Bukata, R. P., Jerome, J. H., Kondratyev, K. Y., & Pozdnyakov, D. V.
(1995), Optical Properties and Remote Sensing of Inland and Coastal
Waters, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 362 pp.
Carder, K. L., & Steward, R. G. (1985). A remote-sensing reflectance
model of a red tide dinoflagellate of west Florida. Limnology and
Oceanography, 30, 286 ± 298.
Carder, K. L., Reinersman, P., Chen, R. F., Muller-Karger, F., Davis, C. O.,
& Hamilton, M. (1993). AVIRIS calibration and application in coastal
oceanic environments. Remote Sensing of Environment, 44, 205 ± 216.
Carder, M., Carder, K., & Weigle, B. L. (1997), Skylight correction of
video images: an airship shadow approach. In Proc. 4th International
Conference on Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments,
ERIM International, Ann Arbor, MI, Vol. II, pp. 631 ± 639, 1997.
349
Clark, R. N., Swayze, G. A., Keidebrecht, K., Green, R. O., & Goetz, A. F.
H. (1995), Calibration to surface reflectance of terrestrial imaging spec-
trometer data: comparison of methods. In Summaries of the Fifth JPL
Airborne Earth Science Workshop, JPL Publ. 95 ± 1, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, Vol. 1, pp. 41 ± 42.
Clark, R. N., Swayze, G. A., King, T. V. V., et al. (1999), Surface reflectance
calibration of terrestrial imaging spectroscopy data: a tutorial using
AVIRIS. In Summaries of the Ninth JPL Airborne Earth Science Work-
shop, CA Publ. 99 ± 1, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, Vol. 1, pp.
41 ± 42. http://makalu.jpl.nasa.gov/docs/workshops/98_docs/toc.htm.
Elvidge, C. D. (1988), Examination of the spectral features of vegetation in
1987 AVIRIS data. In Proceedings of the Second Airborne Visible/In-
frared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) Workshop, JPL Publ. 90 ± 54, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, pp. 97 ± 101.
Gao, B.-C., Keidebrecht, K. B., & Goetz, A. F. H. (1993). Derivation of
scaled surface reflectances from AVIRIS data. Remote Sensing of En-
vironment, 44, 165 ± 178.
Gastil, M., & Melack, J. M. (1998), Improved atmospheric correction for
AVIRIS spectra from inland waters. In Summaries of the Eighth Annual
JPL Airborne Earth Science Workshop, JPL Publ. 98 ± 1, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, Vol. 1, pp. 41 ± 42. http://makalu.jpl.nasa.-
gov/docs/workshops/98_docs/toc.htm.
Gordon, H. R., Clark, D. K., Brown, J. W., Brown, O. B., Evans, R. H., &
Broendow, W. W. (1983). Phytoplankton pigment concentrations in the
Middle Atlantic Bight: Comparison of ship determinations and CZCS
estimates. Applied Optics, 22, 20 ± 36.
Green, R. O., Conel, J. E., & Roberts, D. A., (1993), Estimation of aerosol
optical depth and additional atmospheric parameters for the calculation
of the reflectance from radiance measured by the Airborne Visible/
Infrared Imaging Spectrometer. In Summaries of the Fourth Annual
JPL Airborne Geoscience Workshop, JPL Publ. 93 ± 26, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, Vol. 1, pp. 73 ± 76.
Green, R. O., Eastwood, M. L., Satrure, C. M., et al (1998). Imaging
spectroscopy and the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer
(AVIRIS). Remote Sensing of Environment, 65, 227 ± 248.
Kneizys, F. X., Shettle, E. P., Anderson, G. P., et al. (1987), Atmospheric
Transmittance/Radiance; Computer Code LOWTRAN 7, U.S. Air
Force Geophysics Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA.
Kremer, J. N., & Nixon, S. W. (1978), A Coastal Marine Ecosystem,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 217 pp.
Lee, Z. P., Carder, K. L., Peacock, T. G., Davis, C. O., & Mueller, J. L.
(1996). Method to derive ocean absorption coefficients from remote-
sensing reflectance. Applied Optics, 35, 5721 ± 5732.
Lee, Z. P., Carder, K. L., Mobley, C. D., Steward, R. G., & Patch, J. S.
(1999). Hyperspectral remote sensing for shallow waters: 2. Deriving
bottom depths and water properties by optimization. Applied Optics, 38,
3831 ± 3843.
Mustard, J. F., & Staid, M. L. (1998), Inverse modeling of reflectance to
obtain water constituent abundances: application to AVIRIS data of a
temperate estuary. In Proc. 5th International Conference on Remote
Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, ERIM International,
Ann Arbor, MI, Vol. 1, pp. 29 ± 35.
Pope, R., & Fry, E. (1997). Absorption spectrum (380 ± 700 nm) of
pure waters: II. Integrating cavity measurements. Applied Optics, 36,
8710 ± 8723.
Reinersman, P. N., Carder, K. L., & Chen, F.-I.R. (1998). Satellite-sensor
calibration verification using the cloud-shadow method. Applied Optics,
37, 5541 ± 5549.
Roberts, D. A., Green, R. O., & Adams, J. B. (1997). Temporal and spatial
patterns in vegetation and atmospheric properties from AVIRIS. Remote
Sensing of Envionment, 62, 223 ± 240.
Roesler, C. S., & Perry, M. J. (1995). In situ phytoplankton absorption,
fluorescence emission, and particulate backscatter determined from re-
flectance. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100, 13,279 ± 13,294.
Zaneveld, J. R. V. (1995). A theoretical derivation of the dependence of the
remotely sensed reflectance of the ocean on the inherent optical proper-
ties. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100, 13,135 ± 13,142.