the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Phytoplankton detection study through hyperspectral signals in Patagonian Fjords
Abstract. Over recent decades, monitoring coastal areas has becoming a priority due to human population pressure. These areas constitute biodiversity enclaves where the increment in phytoplankton blooms have become a socio-ecological problem with severe impacts at global and regional scales. An important area they affect is the Patagonia Fjords, a complex and intricate coastal system strongly exposed to climate forcings and anthropogenic impacts with the aquaculture industry (salmon and mussel farming) as the main source of income. Within this context, fast and accurate monitoring of phytoplankton in the area is crucial. In this study, we focus on using a new technology combining hyperspectral sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to detect, identify, and differentiate phytoplankton species from optical data. Findings show differences not only between diatoms and dinoflagellates through the shape and magnitude of the spectral signal at 440, 470, 500, 520, 550, 570, and 580 nm but also at the genera level (Rhizosolenia sp., Pseudo-nitzschia sp., Skeletonema sp., Chaetoceros sp., and Leptocylindrus sp.) and even species level like Heterocapsa triquetra. Chlorophyll-a concentration played a key role in reflectance spectra showing high variability in the green-red bands (~ 500–750 nm) at low concentrations (< 2 μg L-1), and even greater at the blue bands (~ 400–490 nm) under higher concentrations (> 4 μg L-1). Although this work presents a step forward in using new tools and monitoring methodology of phytoplankton in complex coastal systems with a new identification route, more high-quality data from a wide range of ecosystems and environments is still necessary.
- Preprint
(2728 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(115 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3951', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Feb 2025
Review of “Phytoplankton detection study through hyperspectral signals in Patagonian Fjords”
The manuscript by Aparicio-Rizzo et al. presents an interesting study on the use of hyperspectral sensors mounted on UAVs to monitor phytoplankton in the complex coastal systems of the Patagonian Fjords. The manuscript has a clear objective, that is to address the challenges in monitoring phytoplankton blooms using in-situ or satellite monitoring methods in complex coastal areas, particularly in regions with harmful algal blooms. Based on the collected UAV dataset, the authors have demonstrated the potential of hyperspectral data to differentiate between phytoplankton species and genera, which is an advancement in the field of remote sensing and phytoplankton monitoring.
Overall, the manuscript is good-structured and clearly written. The hyperspectral data and its concurrent oceanographic measurements provide a comprehensive understanding of the phytoplankton dynamics in the study area. Moreover, the use of UAVs for in-situ reflectance measurements is innovative, offering a practical solution to the limitations of satellite-based monitoring in regions with high cloud cover and complex coastal environments.
However, there are a few areas where the manuscript could be improved. Below, I provide general and specific comments aimed at improving the manuscript.
General comments
- The introduction provides a comprehensive background on the importance of phytoplankton monitoring in the region. However, it would benefit from a more detailed discussion of the limitations of satellite-based monitoring.Additionally, a clearer explanation of the advantages of hyperspectral imaging over traditional methods would also help.
- The manuscript mentions the calibration of the hyperspectral sensor and the calculation of remote sensing reflectance. However, it lacks detailed steps on how these processes were carried out. For example:
- detailed steps or results of the noise reduction process;
- more details on the geometric correction process;
- a detailed assessment of data quality, e.g., noise levels before and after processing.
- Do you have any UAV-matched satellite data or in-situ measurements? Including a comparison or validation with matched satellite or in-situ data would strengthen the findings.
- The criteria for selecting sampling locations are well explained, but the presentation of these locations in the figures could be improved. For example, in Figure 1, it is unclear how (b) and (c) relate to (a), and the labelling of stations (e.g., TENCLO) does not clearly match across figures (e.g., Figures 3-5) and Table 1. It is better to ensure consistent labelling, which would help readers unfamiliar with the region better understand it.
- The discussion could benefit from a more detailed comparison with existing studies. For example, there are many studies on the spectral properties of dinoflagellates and diatoms (through in-situ or satellite observation). Additionally, some paragraphs rely heavily on the same references, please consider selecting the most appropriate references.
Specific comments
- Lines 38-58. As mentioned above, the references used in this section are not always appropriate. Consider revising to include more relevant studies or selecting the most appropriate references to support the points being made.
- Line 70. CDOM is not particulate matter.This should be revised.
- Line 140. The sentence could be revised for clarity.
- Line 145. The sentence implies that Chl-a was measured in the microplankton range, which is likely not the case. Please revise.
- Line 173. Add a comma after "signal".
- Table 2. Ensure consistency in decimal places across temperature, salinity, and Chl-a values.
- Figure 5. Recommend changing "Chlo" to "Chl-a" to be consistent with the rest of the manuscript.
- Lines 382-385. These two sentences lack logical flow. The first sentence discusses non-biological particles, while the second shifts to phytoplankton.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3951-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pilar Aparicio, 06 Mar 2025
To whom it may concern,
Thank you very much for your contributions to the improvement of the manuscript “Phytoplankton detection study through hyperspectral signals in Patagonian Fjords” We would like to inform you that all your general and specific comments have been considered.
Concerning the main comments:
1.- Improvement in the introduction regarding satellite limitations and hyperspectral advantages: The text included in lines 58-67 and 100-109 seeks to enhance the information in the introduction but expands the discussion in the corresponding section (discussion).
2.- Regarding data processing (the noise reduction process, geometric correction process): A more detailed text has been added (lines 186-193). However, we’d like to mention that in our study, only reflectance data was used, not hyperspectral images.
3.- Respect to a comparison and/or validation process matching in situ reflectance data with satellite. This aspect has been considered for us, but we had several problems with the scarcity of data available for our monitored coastal area on the punctual day. We are working to obtain satellite data from different missions with a greater spatial and temporal resolution. Regarding comparison or validation with in situ data, please consider that all data we used in this study have been taken in situ.
4.- Thanks to this comment, all the figures and tables of the paper have been revised. Changes suggested by Figure 1 have been applied, and the figure caption has also been corrected. Tables decimals have been unified. Figures 3 and 4 colours have been corrected, and Figure 5 Chlorophyll acronym has been corrected.
5.- In the discussion section, a more detailed comparison with other studies around the spectral signal has been introduced (lines 357-369).
In relation to the specific comments, all of them have been considered in general. Only to mention:
- Line 145. The sentence implies that Chl-a was measured in the microplankton range, which is likely not the case. Please revise.
In this case, we corrected the text (line 162) to be clear that phytoplankton species composition analysis has been done under the microphytoplankton range.
- Lines 382-385. These two sentences lack logical flow. The first sentence discusses non-biological particles, while the second shifts to phytoplankton.
We have changed both text and paragraph order (lines 405-415), trying to improve the flow of the writing.
We want to mention that all cites along the text, mainly in the introduction and discussion sections, have been revised and adapted to reduce the number and updated when it corresponds. Finally, we would like to mention that all the changes applied to the manuscript have been highlighted in red and yellow to make it easier and faster to review them.
Thank you very much for your time and contributions.
Sincerely, Dra. P.A.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3951', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Mar 2025
This article discusses a pilot study on using hyperspectral drone imagery to monitor different species of phytoplankton. It is an interesting effort as distinguishing diverse species outside a lab environment is always a challenge. This paper mainly uses preliminary results as an entry point to discuss challenges and opportunities of this direction. I have a few major and minor comments that I hope would be constructive to the authors.
First, I found some parts in the methodology was not sufficiently detailed. For example, the 2.5 Data processing (should be named as Data Analyses at least) section has very limited information, inconsistent with the level of details in other subsections 2.1-2.4. It is unclear if the authors have conducted geometric corrections, radiometric corrections (and how), HCA and PCA analysis steps, etc. When I read Section 3 Results, I found it difficult to match with Section 2. Also, where is the results for the non-parametric K-S test?
Second, my main critique is about Section 3.1, which characterizes those sites but takes a few pages. While it is helpful to characterize those sites, it was done with lengthy statistical analyses and their visualizations that are not quite relevant to the main theme - hyperspectral analyses. It is unclear how it supports the main objective "the characterisation of the reflectance spectra of different phytoplankton assemblages, either harmful or non-harmful, dominated by a single species." However, if this subsection were removed, the results section would be so slim.
Third, because the authors focused on a pilot study in this article, it is reasonable to expect a comprehensive blueprint on the path forward. I found Section 4.2 was relatively underdeveloped. Challenges and opportunities are better to be organized around a few general themes for deeper insights.
Lastly, the article suffers from the use of inaccurate phrases, grammatical errors, and labeling issues. For example, at Line55, spatio-temporal resolution has contained the long revisit cycle. At Line 82, it is unclear if geography (complex topography) would be a direct issue for phytoplankton. In the legend of Fig 11, the label for low and high Chlo(s) were not distinguishable. Line 344: the phrase 'a non-significant difference' sounds odd. Line 350: what is "clusters together assemblage"? Line 366: variability -> the variability.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3951-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
110 | 41 | 7 | 158 | 19 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 110
- PDF: 41
- XML: 7
- Total: 158
- Supplement: 19
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 63 | 36 |
Chile | 2 | 29 | 16 |
China | 3 | 13 | 7 |
France | 4 | 12 | 7 |
United Kingdom | 5 | 10 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 63