the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Retrieval pseudo BRDF-adjusted surface reflectance at 440 nm from Geostationary Environmental Monitoring Spectrometer (GEMS)
Abstract. In remote sensing applications, enhancing the precision of level 2 (L2) algorithms relies heavily on the accurate estimation of the surface reflectance across the ultraviolet (UV) to visible (VIS) spectrum. However, the mutual dependence between the L2 algorithms and surface reflectance retrieval poses challenges, necessitating an alternative approach. To address this issue, many satellite algorithms generate Lambert Equivalent Reflectance (LER) products as a priori surface reflectance data; however, this often results in an underestimation of these data. This study introduces a novel approach to surface reflectance retrieval, termed background surface reflectance (BSR), which leverages a semi-empirical Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) model to simulate surface reflectance based on BRDF components. This study pioneered the application of the BRDF model to hyperspectral satellite data in the UV-VIS region, aiming to provide more realistic preliminary surface reflectance data. In this study, the Geostationary Environment Monitoring Spectrometer (GEMS) data was used, and a comparative analysis of the GEMS BSR and GEMS LER revealed an improvement in the relative Root Mean Squared Error (rRMSE) accuracy of 3 %. Additionally, a time-series analysis across diverse land types indicated a greater stability exhibited by the BSR than by the LER. For further validation, the BSR was compared with other LER databases using ground-truth data, yielding superior simulation performance. These findings present a promising avenue for enhancing the accuracy of surface reflectance retrieval from hyperspectral satellite data, thereby advancing the practical applications of remote sensing algorithms.
- Preprint
(6863 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 May 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-601', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2024
reply
The paper is generally well-written and makes a valuable scientific contribution. However, I suggest including additional details and making minor revisions to improve clarity and aid readers' understanding.
After reading through the entire paper, I found a few areas that could benefit from further clarification. It would be helpful to expand on the description of the overall process outlined in lines 138-141 to make it easier for readers to follow. Initially, I assumed Figure 1 was a flowchart illustrating the algorithm, with the bottom row representing gap filling. This led me to believe that the method primarily uses BSR while incorporating LER and TOC for gap filling. It took me some time to realize that my interpretation of the flowchart was incorrect. It would be useful if the flowchart clearly indicated the structure of the algorithm, and the text explained that BSR is compared with LER and TOC to validate the BSR results. Even as I write this review, I'm not entirely sure if my understanding of the flowchart is accurate.
Additionally, if this method uses LER for gap filling, does it create any discontinuity between the pixels that use BRDF modeling and those where LER is applied? It would be beneficial for the authors to address this and discuss any potential issues with continuity if applicable.
Regarding the title of Section 4.4, GEMS LER is mentioned as one of the LER databases, but it's unclear whether it was used in Section 4.4. I tried to find a comparison with GEMS LER in this section but couldn't locate any reference to it. If this omission is accurate, it might be better to remove GEMS LER from the section title.
Lastly, I'm uncertain if it's appropriate to describe this method as a "novel concept" or "novel approach" in the abstract and conclusion. Although this study uses the new hyperspectral sensor GEMS, the methodology (BRDF modeling, LER) itself doesn't seem particularly innovative. Thus, I'm not sure if these terms accurately represent the uniqueness of the approach.
Below is a list of typos or text sections that may need to be revised. Thank you for considering these comments, and I look forward to seeing the updated version of your paper.
Line 140 : GEMS TOC -> GEMS Top of Canopy (TOC)
Line 173 : paragraph is duplicated in line 185
Line 212 : does ‘15 d’ means 15 days?
Line 239 : does ‘SFC’ meas surface reflectance?
Line 373 : I guess author was intending ‘GEMS TOC’ not ‘GEMS, TOC’
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-601-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
132 | 35 | 10 | 177 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 132
- PDF: 35
- XML: 10
- Total: 177
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1