Figure 1.
Surface reflectance over land, illustrating (
a) a horizontal surface, (
b) a sloped surface facing the Sun, and (
c) a sloped surface facing away from the Sun [
12].
Figure 1.
Surface reflectance over land, illustrating (
a) a horizontal surface, (
b) a sloped surface facing the Sun, and (
c) a sloped surface facing away from the Sun [
12].
Figure 2.
Contributing pathways of electromagnetic radiation over water, as seen by remote sensing platforms. Source Arnold Dekker CSIRO [
26].
Figure 2.
Contributing pathways of electromagnetic radiation over water, as seen by remote sensing platforms. Source Arnold Dekker CSIRO [
26].
Figure 3.
Field measurement of hemispherical conical reflectance. (
a) A basic geometric relationship between illumination and viewing position [
26], (
b) reflectance panel measurements, (
c) capturing transect radiance data.
Figure 3.
Field measurement of hemispherical conical reflectance. (
a) A basic geometric relationship between illumination and viewing position [
26], (
b) reflectance panel measurements, (
c) capturing transect radiance data.
Figure 4.
Phase 1 site sampling model, modified from Ref. [
19].
Figure 4.
Phase 1 site sampling model, modified from Ref. [
19].
Figure 5.
Panel and surface radiance sampling sequence at Narromine, 17 November 2021.
Figure 5.
Panel and surface radiance sampling sequence at Narromine, 17 November 2021.
Figure 6.
Spectral sampling positions at Narromine, 17 November 2021.
Figure 6.
Spectral sampling positions at Narromine, 17 November 2021.
Figure 7.
QA and QC metrics in pre-processing before generating SR. ((a) All panel readings, (b) panel readings plotted against cosine of of the solar zenith angle and (red) line of best fit, (c) Direct and diffuse downwelling irradiance measured at start and end of the site characterisation).
Figure 7.
QA and QC metrics in pre-processing before generating SR. ((a) All panel readings, (b) panel readings plotted against cosine of of the solar zenith angle and (red) line of best fit, (c) Direct and diffuse downwelling irradiance measured at start and end of the site characterisation).
Figure 8.
UAV and spectrometer package deployed over the Wilcannia Site 2.
Figure 8.
UAV and spectrometer package deployed over the Wilcannia Site 2.
Figure 9.
Wilcannia 2 UAV flight line (blue) ground survey transects (orange).
Figure 9.
Wilcannia 2 UAV flight line (blue) ground survey transects (orange).
Figure 10.
The measurement configurations for the TriOS RAMSES sensors used during the underfly campaign included the SBA approach (left) as shown in the photo on the right on the day of the overpass. Note that the operator dropped below the sensor height prior to data acquisition, where is the azimuth angle relative to the Sun and is the nadir-viewing angle.
Figure 10.
The measurement configurations for the TriOS RAMSES sensors used during the underfly campaign included the SBA approach (left) as shown in the photo on the right on the day of the overpass. Note that the operator dropped below the sensor height prior to data acquisition, where is the azimuth angle relative to the Sun and is the nadir-viewing angle.
Figure 11.
The SDA measurement configurations for the TriOS RAMSES sensors acquired data above the water surface, at the air–water interface and several depths within the water column, where is the azimuth angle relative to the Sun and is the nadir-viewing angle.
Figure 11.
The SDA measurement configurations for the TriOS RAMSES sensors acquired data above the water surface, at the air–water interface and several depths within the water column, where is the azimuth angle relative to the Sun and is the nadir-viewing angle.
Figure 12.
Australian underfly field sites.
Figure 12.
Australian underfly field sites.
Figure 13.
Google Earth images of the underfly field sites.
Figure 13.
Google Earth images of the underfly field sites.
Figure 14.
Perth field site.
Figure 14.
Perth field site.
Figure 15.
Perth sampling model.
Figure 15.
Perth sampling model.
Figure 16.
MICROTOPS readings of aerosol optical thickness over the Perth site during the sampling period.
Figure 16.
MICROTOPS readings of aerosol optical thickness over the Perth site during the sampling period.
Figure 17.
Perth field ASD reflectances, transect line averages (coloured) at full resolution (left) and then resampled to Landsat 9 bandwidths (right).
Figure 17.
Perth field ASD reflectances, transect line averages (coloured) at full resolution (left) and then resampled to Landsat 9 bandwidths (right).
Figure 18.
Matchup Perth field data and L8 L9 DEA ARD and USGS ARD.
Figure 18.
Matchup Perth field data and L8 L9 DEA ARD and USGS ARD.
Figure 19.
Cunnamulla field site.
Figure 19.
Cunnamulla field site.
Figure 20.
ECMWF cloud forecast for Wilcannia at the time of the 100% L8/L9 overpass. Accessed 14 November 2021. (source:
https://www.windy.com).
Figure 20.
ECMWF cloud forecast for Wilcannia at the time of the 100% L8/L9 overpass. Accessed 14 November 2021. (source:
https://www.windy.com).
Figure 21.
Wilcannia field site 1.
Figure 21.
Wilcannia field site 1.
Figure 22.
Wilcannia Site 1; first and second site characterisation panel readings vs. solar zenith angle. The line of best fit is shown in red.
Figure 22.
Wilcannia Site 1; first and second site characterisation panel readings vs. solar zenith angle. The line of best fit is shown in red.
Figure 23.
Wilcannia Site 1: First and second site characterisation sampling transects.
Figure 23.
Wilcannia Site 1: First and second site characterisation sampling transects.
Figure 24.
Wilcannia Site 1—the two site characterisations match against the DEA Landsat 8 and 9 ARD.
Figure 24.
Wilcannia Site 1—the two site characterisations match against the DEA Landsat 8 and 9 ARD.
Figure 25.
Wilcannia downwelling irradiance readings (diffuse and direct), showing a stable atmosphere for the time of overpass sampling.
Figure 25.
Wilcannia downwelling irradiance readings (diffuse and direct), showing a stable atmosphere for the time of overpass sampling.
Figure 26.
Wilcannia Site 1 DEA and USGS ARD matchups.
Figure 26.
Wilcannia Site 1 DEA and USGS ARD matchups.
Figure 27.
Wilcannia Site 1 NW corner point.
Figure 27.
Wilcannia Site 1 NW corner point.
Figure 28.
Wilcannia 2 field site.
Figure 28.
Wilcannia 2 field site.
Figure 29.
Wilcannia Site 2 SR3500 and UAV Flame matchups.
Figure 29.
Wilcannia Site 2 SR3500 and UAV Flame matchups.
Figure 30.
Narromine field site, which was specifically chosen in anticipation of there only being a 15% side lap.
Figure 30.
Narromine field site, which was specifically chosen in anticipation of there only being a 15% side lap.
Figure 31.
Narromine ASD and SR3500 datasets alongside Landsat 8. Geolocation of spectral data points (left), panel readings on the line of best fit (centre), matchup field data vs. L8 (right) matchup.
Figure 31.
Narromine ASD and SR3500 datasets alongside Landsat 8. Geolocation of spectral data points (left), panel readings on the line of best fit (centre), matchup field data vs. L8 (right) matchup.
Figure 32.
Narromine L8 (left) and L9 (right) RGB images.
Figure 32.
Narromine L8 (left) and L9 (right) RGB images.
Figure 33.
Narromine DEA ARD and USGS matchups against both the ASD-FR and SR3500 spectrometers.
Figure 33.
Narromine DEA ARD and USGS matchups against both the ASD-FR and SR3500 spectrometers.
Figure 34.
Lake Hume. Field site sample times and conditions at the time of overpass.
Figure 34.
Lake Hume. Field site sample times and conditions at the time of overpass.
Figure 35.
The impact of Sun-sensor alignment on the sky glint at Lake Hume. Landsat 8 (left) is viewed at the nadir while Landsat 9 (right), descending in the adjacent orbit, is tilted while imaging the lake. The red inset square in the large images defines the inset zoom window.
Figure 35.
The impact of Sun-sensor alignment on the sky glint at Lake Hume. Landsat 8 (left) is viewed at the nadir while Landsat 9 (right), descending in the adjacent orbit, is tilted while imaging the lake. The red inset square in the large images defines the inset zoom window.
Figure 36.
Remote sensing reflectance for Lake Hume Site 1, A-ARD, and USGS-ARD. Sampled 1 h before the overpasses.
Figure 36.
Remote sensing reflectance for Lake Hume Site 1, A-ARD, and USGS-ARD. Sampled 1 h before the overpasses.
Figure 37.
Remote sensing reflectance, , at Lake Hume Dam wall: A-ARD and USGS-ARD. Site sampled 1–2 h after Landsat overpasses.
Figure 37.
Remote sensing reflectance, , at Lake Hume Dam wall: A-ARD and USGS-ARD. Site sampled 1–2 h after Landsat overpasses.
Figure 38.
Remote sensing reflectance, , at Lake Hume Site 6: A-ARD and USGS-ARD.
Figure 38.
Remote sensing reflectance, , at Lake Hume Site 6: A-ARD and USGS-ARD.
Figure 39.
Remote sensing reflectance, , at Lake Hume Site 10: A-ARD and USGS-ARD.
Figure 39.
Remote sensing reflectance, , at Lake Hume Site 10: A-ARD and USGS-ARD.
Figure 40.
Correlations of the Australia field data and L8 and L9 for all sites for DEA and USGS ARD SR products.
Figure 40.
Correlations of the Australia field data and L8 and L9 for all sites for DEA and USGS ARD SR products.
Figure 41.
Correlation between Landsat 8 and Landsat 9 for the Australian terrestrial site for DEA and USGS ARD SR products.
Figure 41.
Correlation between Landsat 8 and Landsat 9 for the Australian terrestrial site for DEA and USGS ARD SR products.
Table 1.
Underfly validation sites and sensor packages.
Table 1.
Underfly validation sites and sensor packages.
Site | ASD-FR | SR3500 | Flame | Ramses |
---|
Perth | Y | - | - | - |
Wilcannia 1 | Y | - | - | - |
Wilcannia 2 | - | Y | Y | - |
Cunnamulla | Y | - | - | - |
Narromine | Y | Y | - | - |
Lake Hume | - | - | - | Y |
Table 2.
Underfly overpass times for Lake Hume.
Table 2.
Underfly overpass times for Lake Hume.
Satellite | Path | Row | UTC | AEDT |
---|
Landsat 8 | 92 | 85 | 00:03 | 11:03 |
Landsat 9 | 91 | 85 | 23:56 | 10:56 |
Table 3.
Lake Hume sample measurement methods, locations, and times. NB site 6 and the dam wall were sampled the day before and site Hume 10 was sampled at the overpass time.
Table 3.
Lake Hume sample measurement methods, locations, and times. NB site 6 and the dam wall were sampled the day before and site Hume 10 was sampled at the overpass time.
SiteID | Method | Latitude | Longitude | Time (UTC) | Time (AEDT) |
---|
06-21-11-1 | SDA | | 147.0798 | 16-11-2021 02:45 | 16-11-2021 13:45 |
DAMWALL-21-11-1 | SDA | | 147.0338 | 16-11-2021 04:33 | 16-11-2021 15:33 |
01-21-11-1 | SDA | | 147.052 | 16-11-2021 21:20 | 17-11-2021 08:20 |
10-21-11-2 | SBM | | 147.0925 | 16-11-2021 23:52 | 17-11-2021 10:52 |
10-21-11-2 | | | 147.0925 | 16-11-2021 00:04 | 17-11-2021 11:04 |
10-21-11-2 | SDA | | 147.0925 | 16-11-2021 23:55 | 17-11-2021 10:55 |
10-21-11-1 | SDA | | 147.0925 | 17-11-2021 00:19 | 17-11-2021 11:19 |
Table 4.
Perth overpasses.
Table 4.
Perth overpasses.
Satellite | Path | Row | Time(UTC) | AWST |
---|
Landsat 8 | 112 | 082 | 02:05.49 | 10:05 |
Landsat 9 | 113 | 082 | 02:11.21 | 10:11 |
Table 5.
Wilcannia overpasses.
Table 5.
Wilcannia overpasses.
Satellite | Path | Row | Time (UTC) | AEDT |
---|
Landsat 8 | 094 | 082 | 00:14:34 | 11:14:34 |
Landsat 9 | 094 | 082 | 00:13.57 | 11:13:57 |
Table 6.
Summary of field validation sites.
Table 6.
Summary of field validation sites.
Site | % Overlap | Field Validation |
---|
Perth | 15 | 1 |
Wilcannia | 100 | 2 |
Cunnamulla | 100 | 1 |
Narromine | 100 | 2 |
Lake Hume | 100 | 1 (six sites) |
Total | | 6 |