Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rsase

Atmospheric correction assessment of SPOT-6 image and its influence

on models to estimate water column transparency in tropical reservoir
Luiz H.S. Rotta n, Enner H. Alcântara, Fernanda S.Y. Watanabe, Thanan W.P. Rodrigues,
Nilton N. Imai
São Paulo State University, Department of Cartography, 19060-900 Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Remote sensing images have been increasingly used by its ability to collect data from extensive areas in a
Received 3 March 2016 short time and with relatively low cost. Studies conducted in aquatic environments require great at-
Received in revised form tention in relation to atmospheric correction, since the signal leaving water bodies is strongly attenuated.
12 May 2016
The present work aimed to assess the atmospheric correction of SPOT-6 image based on the variation of
Accepted 9 September 2016
Available online 10 September 2016
initial visibility parameter in FLAASH and analyze its influence on models to estimate Secchi depth (SD)
and diffuse attenuation coefficient (Kd). The study was carried out in Nova Avanhandava Reservoir, which
Keywords: belongs to the chain of the Tietê River reservoirs (São Paulo, Brazil). The models calibration was based on
FLAASH remote sensing reflectance (Rrs) of simulated SPOT bands from data collected in the field. The best
Visibility
models were obtained using the band ratio Rrs(560 nm)/Rrs(660 nm) for SD (R2 ¼92%, RMSE ¼11.45%)
Diffuse attenuation coefficient (Kd)
and the band Rrs(660 nm) for Kd (R2 ¼ 92%, RMSE ¼11.98%). Maps of the spatial distribution of SD and Kd
Secchi depth (SD)
Nova Avanhandava Reservoir were made by applying the models on atmospherically corrected images. The main problem was the high
amount of negative pixels when the suitable initial visibility value was not adopted in the atmospheric
correction, which prevents the use of bio-optical models to retrieve limnological variables of the re-
servoir.
& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The radiation reflected or emitted by the Earth’s surface passes
through the atmosphere, which interacts with several gases, water
vapor and particulates. Thus, the radiation is influenced by the
atmospheric scattering, absorption, reflection and refraction be-
fore being recorded by the remote sensing system (Jensen, 2009).
Even when the sky is clear, the intensity of the solar beam is sig-
nificantly reduced during its passage through the atmosphere
(Kirk, 2011). In studies of aquatic environments, application of
atmospheric corrections is recommended (Wang et al., 1999; Hu
et al., 2001; Jamet et al., 2011), since the signal of the water bodies
are significantly lower than vegetation, soil or anthropogenic tar-
gets, demanding greater accuracy in the correction process.
The use of satellites to monitor the color of the water requires
effective removal of the contribution of the atmosphere to the
total signal measured by the remote sensor by atmospheric cor-
rection process (Jamet et al., 2011). Atmospheric correction over
aquatic environments is generally more demanding than over land
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: luizhrotta@gmail.com (L.H.S. Rotta),
enner@fct.unesp.br (E.H. Alcântara), fernandasyw@gmail.com (F.S.Y. Watanabe),
twalesza@gmail.com (T.W.P. Rodrigues), nnima@fct.unesp.br (N.N. Imai).
because the signal from the water column is small (Hu et al.,
2001). For Wang (1999), the atmospheric correction is a funda-
mental procedure in water color imagery data processing and re-
move about 90% of the signal measured by the sensor in the visible
bands. Chen et al. (2007) ignored the atmospheric correction of
TM-Landsat data because only one scene was used; however, the
results are not comparable temporally or spatially. Usually, atmo-
spheric correction is necessary. An algorithm to perform atmo-
spheric correction of SeaWiFS data for turbid coastal waters has
been described and tested by Ruddick et al. (2000). According to
Hadjimitsis and Clayton (2009), the atmospheric correction must
be done for the assessment of temporal variations of water quality.
Many studies of aquatic environments have shown the importance
of atmospheric correction using different satellite images such as
Landsat (Hu et al., 2001; Giardino et al., 2001; Zheng et al., 2015),
SPOT (Doxaran et al., 2002), MODIS (He and Chen, 2014), ENVISAT/
MERIS (Guanter et al., 2010), and SeaWiFS (Hu et al., 2000).
Several studies have been conducted in order to evaluate dif-
ferent atmospheric correction methods, especially for aquatic en-
vironments. Bonansea et al. (2015) evaluated the potential of 6S
radiative transfer model to improve the reliability for estimating
water clarity in Río Tercero reservoir (Argentina). They demon-
strated the usefulness of 6S code for atmospheric correction in
Landsat data. The water clarity algorithm using surface reflectance

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2016.09.001
2352-9385/& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 L.H.S. Rotta et al. / Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166
was more reliable than the top of atmosphere (TOA) reflectance
model.
According to Goyens et al. (2013), studies comparing algo-
rithms of atmospheric correction are of great interest for further
improvement in water leaving radiance retrievals from satellite
images. Four atmospheric correction algorithms for MODIS-Aqua
were tested and compared: (1) the standard NIR algorithm of
NASA, (2) the NIR similarity spectrum algorithm, (3) the NIR-SWIR
algorithm and (4) an Artificial Neural Network algorithm. The
standard NIR algorithm performs better for water dominated by
phytoplankton and the artificial neural network algorithm shows
the best results for water mainly dominated by detrital and mi-
neral material.
There are several atmospheric correction algorithms available,
nevertheless, algorithms based on MODTRAN - FLAASH (Fast Line-
of-sight Atmospheric Analysis of Spectral Hypercube) (Adler-
Golden et al., 1999) have been widely used with success in studies
of aquatic environments for both atmospheric corrections of hy-
perspectral (Brando and Dekker, 2003; Kutser, 2004; Moses et al.,
2012) and multispectral images (Kutser, 2012; Tebbs et al., 2013;
Watanabe et al., 2015).
In some cases, initial visibility value must be specified by user
when using FLAASH. The researchers can use appropriated
equipment to measure the local visibility. Initial visibility of
33.86 km, obtained by a sun photometer (CE318), was used in
FLAASH for atmospheric correction of Landsat image by Song et al.
(2012). However, the authors commonly must insert an initial
visibility based on their personal perception of the day, and this is
Fig. 1. (a) Study area – Nova Avanhandava Reservoir. (b) Sampling stations collected in Bonito River: deep water (yellow dots) and shallow water (white dots). Image: SPOT-
6; B0G1R2; July 9th, 2013; WGS-84; UTM Zone 22S.
159
a source of uncertainty. Normally, the researchers do not test the
visibility in the atmospheric correction, and this can lead to error
in the correction. Zhang et al. (2014) used initial visibility of 40 km
in atmospheric correction of EO-1 hyperion using FLAASH. They
aimed to estimate the leaf area index in the forested area of
Yongan county, Fujian province (China). The 20 km initial visibility
was used by Yuan and Niu (2008) to evaluate the capability of
FLAASH to make the atmospheric correction for Hyperion and ALI
image in Heihe River valley of Gansu province (China). Wicaksono
(2012), aimed remove sunglint from Quickbird image of an area
located in the National Park of Ujung Kulon, Banten Province (In-
donesia). For the initial visibility, they used 40 km considering
visibility during clear sunny cloudless day. Landsat images from
1978 to 2013 (MSS, TM, ETMþ and OLI sensors) were used in
Zheng et al. (2015); initial visibility was chosen as 30–40 km for
the aerosol retrieval, depending on the image quality.
The visibility is a parameter required to minimize the effect of
the atmosphere on the remote sensor signal. Being the initial
visibility required for atmospheric correction in FLAASH, what is
the effect of setting different visibility values for the estimation of
water quality parameters using satellite images? Therefore, this
study aimed to assess the atmospheric correction of SPOT-6 image
based on the variation of initial visibility parameter in FLAASH and
analyze its influence on models to estimate Secchi depth (SD) and
diffuse attenuation coefficient (Kd). It is noteworthy that atmo-
spheric correction is necessary mainly when temporal analysis is
required, thereby initial visibility is needed in several procedures.
160 L.H.S. Rotta et al. / Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166
2. Study area
Nova Avanhandava Reservoir (Fig. 1a) belong to Tietê River's
cascading system, fully contained in São Paulo State (SP) - Brazil.
The Nova Avanhandava hydroelectric plant is located in Buritama
city - SP, in the lower course of Tietê River, between Promissão
(upstream) and Três Irmãos (downstream) dams. Nova Avanhan-
dava began its operation in 1982 and is managed by AES Tiete
Company (http://www.aestiete.com.br/). It has a flooded area of
210 km2 and volume of 2830  106 m3. The dam is the type
ground/concrete, with 2038 m length.
3. Methodology
3.1. Field data collection
Secchi depth (SD) and diffuse attenuation coefficient (Kd) were
collected in a field campaign carried out between 28th and 30th
June 2013. Nowadays, the Secchi disk method still widely used in
water body studies, due to the low cost and simplicity: a circular
disk about 30 cm (Fig. 2a) must be submerged up to the point of its
disappearance – the distance between the water surface and that
point is called SD. Kd is defined as the attenuation rate of irradiance
with depth, which diminishes almost as an exponential function
(Kirk, 2011). Kd is derived using the downwelling irradiance just
below the water surface, Ed (z;λ), measured in field as shown in
Eq. (1) (Mobley, 1994):
Ed( z; λ ) = Ed( 0−; λ )e−Kd( z; λ)z
where,
1. Ed(z;λ): downwelling irradiance at depth z;
2. Ed(0-;λ): downwelling irradiance just below the water surface;
3. Kd(z;λ): diffuse attenuation coefficient at depth z.
A vertical profile of the downwelling irradiance (Ed) was ac-
quired using a spectroradiometer RAMSES/TriOs (http://www.
trios.de; Rastede, Germany) through the water at every 1.0 m
depth (Fig. 2b). The hyperspectral UV/VIS irradiance sensor has
190 channels ranging from 320 to 950 nm. However, the Ed values
between 400 and 700 nm were integrated to obtain Ed of Photo-
synthetically Active Radiation (PAR), Ed(PAR).
Besides Ed, upwelling radiance (Lu) data were also collected and
therefore, the remote sensing reflectance above surface (Rrs) (see
Fig. 1b for sampling location) was calculated at 20 sampling sta-
tions. Rrs was calculated using Eq. (2), based on Dall’Olmo and
Gitelson (2005) and Gitelson et al. (2008):
Fig. 2. (a) Secchi disk and (b) hyperspectral sensor TriOS.
L u( λ ) t
R rs(λ )= Fi
Ed( λ ) n2 (2)
where,
1. Lu(λ): is the upwelling radiance at nadir just below-surface;
2. Ed(λ): is the downwelling irradiance;
3. t: is the transmittance at air-water interface (0.98);
4. n: is the refractive index of water relative to air (1.33);
5. Fi: is the spectral immersion coefficient.
Those 20 samples were collected in Bonito River, tributary of
Tietê River, as follow: 10 sampling stations in optically deep water,
i.e. regions with reflectance without bottom signal; and 10 sam-
pling stations in optically shallow water, i.e. regions where the
water-leaving reflectance is the sum of water column and bottom
reflectance. The Rrs was calculated for every 20 sample stations,
however, the SD and Kd were measured only at 10 stations in deep
water (Fig. 1b – yellow points). This procedure was adopted in
order to avoid bottom reflectance contribution.
3.2. Atmospheric correction of SPOT-6
SPOT-6 satellite sensor built by AIRBUS Defense & Space was
successfully launched on September 9th, 2012. SPOT-6 satellite
and SPOT-7 ensure service continuity of SPOT- 4 and SPOT-5 sa-
tellites, which have been operating since 1998 and 2002. The re-
visit time is 1d with SPOT 6 and SPOT 7 operating simultaneously
(Astrium, 2013). The Table 1 shows the main characteristics of
(1)
SPOT-6 image acquired on study area.
The atmospheric correction of SPOT-6 image was made using
FLAASH which is an atmospheric correction tool based on MOD-
TRAN4 (MODerate spectral resolution atmospheric TRANsmittance
algorithm and computer model) (Adler-Golden et al., 1999). Users
have limited control over the choice and setting of input para-
meters in FLAASH. This program is simple to run, but the user has
to specify appropriate input parameters that characterize the at-
mospheric conditions and illumination/viewing geometry at the
time of image acquisition. The default values are based on theo-
retical estimates and information from the literature are used as
input parameters when actual measurements are not available
(Moses et al., 2012).
The scene visibility value must be inserted in FLAASH for the
atmospheric correction. According to ITT (2009), for clear atmo-
sphere, i.e. without haze, the initial visibility should be approxi-
mated to the values from 40 to 100 km. Due to uncertainty about
the adequate initial visibility; three different values
were tested: 40, 70 and 100 km (Table 2). Therefore, three
 L.H.S. Rotta et al. / Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166 161

Table 1
SPOT-6 image characteristics.

Acquisition date 2013-07-09

Acquisition time 13:08:43.5
Number of spectral bands 4 (B0 B1 B2 B3)
Wavelength B0 (455–525 nm)
B1 (530–590 nm)
B2 (625–695 nm)
B3 (760–890 nm)
Across angle  6.60018867713°
Along angle 19.1336359344°
Coordinate reference system WGS  84
Resampling distance 6.7 m

Fig. 3. Relative spectral response of SPOT-6. Adapted from ASTRIUM (2003).

Table 2
Input parameters in FLAASH. correction procedure was assessed based on RMSE, image histo-
gram and amount of negative values, using Kd and SD models. The
Sensor type SPOT 6 Atmospheric model Tropical
atmospherically corrected SPOT-6 image, which presented the best
Sensor altitude 695 km Aerosol model Rural
Ground elevation 362 m Initial visibilitya 40, 70 and 100 km results in their assessment based on Kd and SD models, was se-
Flight date July 9th, 2013 Zenith angle 161.5° lected. The chosen models were applied in the same SPOT image
Flight time GMT 13:08:43 Azimuth angle  165° (or 195°) producing thematic maps which show the spatial distribution of
a
SD and Kd.
Initial visibilities tested in FLAASH considering the recommendation in ITT
(2009) for clear weather condition (between 40 and 100 km).

atmospherically corrected images were generated. 4. Results and discussion

To simulate the Rrs(λi) signals that would be recorded by the
satellite sensor at each channel centered at wavelength λi,
weighted averages of each Rrs spectrum were calculated by using
as weights the spectral band responses of SPOT-6, (Fig. 3; Astrium,
2013) as given below (Eq. 3).
∑λ R rs(λ )*S(λ )
R rss(λ )=
∑λ S(λ )
where S(λ) is the SPOT-6 spectral response function, and Rrs_s(λ) is
the simulated Rrs. The spectral response characteristics of the
SPOT-6 instrument, similar to any remote sensing instrument, are
the key to understand and utilize the data.
3.3. Model calibration and validation
The simulated bands (Rrs_s(λ)) were used for calibration and the
models for SD and Kd were tested based on each individual band,
i.e. linear regression of SD and Kd with blue (Rrs(485 nm)), green
(Rrs(560 nm)) and red (Rrs(660 nm)) bands. Furthermore, other
models were tested empirically based on all possible band ratios,
i.e. regression of SD and Kd with Rrs(560 nm)/Rrs(485 nm),
Rrs(560 nm)/Rrs(660 nm) and Rrs(660 nm)/Rrs(485 nm). The best
model for each variable (SD and Kd) was selected based on the
coefficient of determination (R2) and the Root-Mean-Square-Error
(RMSE). Both selected models were used to evaluate the atmo-
spheric correction of the image, analyzing the influence of input
“visibility” data in FLAASH in estimation of Kd and SD.
The 10 samples acquired in deep water were used in models
calibration (see Fig. 1 for sampling stations). The samples in deep
water avoid signal from the bottom. Due to the low number of
samples for model calibration, LOOCV (Leave-One-Out Cross Va-
lidation) method was used to evaluate the models, so it is not
necessary to remove samples for validation. In LOOCV, the model
is calibrated using all data except one point, then the mean
squared error is computed based on this point (Stone, 1974; Arlot
and Celisse, 2010). The main advantage of LOOCV is that all the
data can be used for training the model. This procedure was re-
peated n times, where n is the sample number. Thus, the final
RMSE is calculated.
The adoption of different initial visibility data in atmospheric
4.1. Field data
Based on Lu and Ed the Rrs of 20 sampling stations were cal-
culated and its spectra data are shown in Fig. 4a. The SD and Kd of
the 10 sample stations located in deep water are shown in Fig. 4b.
The P04 presented the major discrepancy among the sample
(3) points, showing Rrs values much greater than the average at wa-
velengths between 520 nm and 720 nm. Low transparency was
also observed at this sample, i.e. high Kd and low SD. A sand
mining company had been observed near the P04, therefore, the
sand extraction from the bottom of the river could be accelerating
the sediment re-suspension which increases the Kd and decreases
transparency values for the surrounding locations, as showing in
Fig. 4b. In other words, the higher sediment concentration in P04
causes an increasing in scattering, so the reflectance is increased.
4.2. Atmospheric correction of SPOT-6
Three images were generated as result of the atmosphere cor-
rection of SPOT-6, one image for each initial visibility adopted in
FLAASH, i.e. visibility of 40 km (Fig. 5b), 70 km (Fig. 5c) and
100 km (Fig. 5d) used in FLAASH. The assessment of the correc-
tions was conducted considering simulated SPOT-6 bands (Fig. 5a)
in order to compare the atmospherically corrected images with a
reference, that is, data without atmospheric influence.
The atmospherically corrected images using visibility of 70 and
100 km presented similar reflectance values, mainly in the green
band (560 nm). The image using visibility of 40 km presented Rrs
values lower than simulated bands based on in situ data. The at-
mospheric correction of NIR (Near Infrared) band did not show
satisfactory result for all tested visibilities. These results may be
associated with the strong radiation absorption by the water at
NIR wavelength, which interferes in atmospheric correction pro-
cess. The absorption by water in the red end region is quite sig-
nificant (about 35% of incident light at 680 nm is absorbed in one-
meter thick of pure water), but it is much stronger in the infrared
(Kirk, 2011).
Negative values on water body were also obtained; especially
when we used initial visibility of 40 km. Table 3 shows the per-
centage of negative pixels for each one of the three
162 L.H.S. Rotta et al. / Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166

Fig. 4. Remote sensing reflectance spectra (a) and SD and Kd at each sampling stations (b).

Fig. 5. Rrs from simulated SPOT-6 based on in situ data (a). Rrs for SPOT image using visibility of 40 km (b), 70 km (c) and 100 km (d) in the atmospheric correction process.

Table 3 showed an underestimation on the corrected image values when

Percentage of negative values for water body in Blue, Green and Red bands based compared with field data. This underestimation explains the high
on different initial visibility data.
number of negative pixels when using visibility of 40 km in the
Negative values atmospheric correction. Adopting a low value for visibility, such as
40 km, we may exceedingly remove the haze effect, so negative
Visibility 40 km 70 km 100 km values may happen. Furthermore, a high RMSE was noted, parti-
Blue (485 nm) 54.92% 0.90% 0.02%
cularly for blue (95.9%) and green (38.2%) bands. A slight over-
Green (560 nm) 2.68% 0.01% 0.00% estimation in Rrs was observed on image corrected by visibility of
Red (660 nm) 6.63% 0.01% 0.00% 100 km when compared to field data (Fig. 6c). Therefore, com-
paring the SPOT image with the field data (simulated SPOT), image
corrected using visibility of 70 km presented the best performance
atmospherically corrected images. A high number of negative
for all bands (Fig. 6b). In this case, we can see the points well
pixels was observed in the corrected image using visibility of
distributed for three bands along the line y¼x (dashed line), i.e.
40 km for all bands; however, the blue band (485 nm) was the
there was not apparent overestimation or underestimation in
most compromised, with the majority of negative pixels (about
corrected pixels. RMSE of 44.6%, 22.6% and 42.8% for the blue,
55%). The images corrected using visibility of 70 km and 100 km
green and red bands, respectively, were calculated based on visi-
did not exhibit a significant number of negative pixel, so presented
better correction. bility of 70 km, the lowest values among the atmospherically
Fig. 6 shows the dispersion plot of atmospherically corrected corrected images.
SPOT image versus simulated SPOT bands based on field data. The
20 sampling points (Fig. 1b) were plotted for each band. The dis- 4.3. Models calibration and validation
persion graphics of images corrected by visibility of 40 km, 70 km
and 100 km are shown in Fig. 6a, b and c, respectively. The models calibration was performed based on Rrs of simu-
The best atmospheric correction performance was observed for lated SPOT bands from the field data. The model calibration for SD
green band in all cases, followed by red and blue bands. Fig. 6a presented the best results when ratio Rrs(560 nm)/Rrs(660 nm)
 L.H.S. Rotta et al. / Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166
Fig. 6. Atmospheric correction validation for visible bands according to the inserted initial visibility of 40 km (a), 70 km (b) and 100 km (c).
was used (Fig. 7a). The best model for Kd was obtained using only
the band Rrs(660 nm) (Fig. 7c). The SD (Eq. 4) and Kd (Eq. 5) models
were selected based on the coefficient of determination (R2), RMSE
and then presented in graphs confronting the measured and cal-
culated values. We observed an adjustment for both models with
high accuracy. The R2 of 92% and RMSE less than 12% were ob-
tained for both models, SD and Kd.
R rs(560nm)
SD=2. 0709× −1. 2697
R rs(660nm)
Kd=67.4155×R rs( 660nm)+0.3978
4.4. Atmospheric correction assessment based on SD and Kd models
The best models based on simulated SPOT bands (Fig. 7) were
selected and applied to each corrected image, using visibility of
40 km, 70 km and 100 km. Further, the RMSE based on in situ data
were calculated (Table 4). Therefore, the spatial distribution of SD
and Kd for the three atmospheric conditions were obtained, re-
sulting in six different histograms (Fig. 8).
The frequency was quite similar to the images corrected by
visibility of 70 km and 100 km, with the highest occurrences in
values between 1.0 and 2.0 m for SD and between 0.6 and 1.0 m  1
163
for Kd. There was an offset to lower values in histograms of images
corrected for visibility of 40 km (SD and Kd – Fig. 8a and d, re-
spectively), i.e. the frequency is higher for lower SD and Kd values,
which corroborates with the previously discussion (Fig. 5) about
the underestimation of reflectance when using this visibility
(40 km). Furthermore, there was a high frequency in the class “No
Data”, i.e. the model was not able to calculate the value for SD
approximately in 6% of the pixels, probably because of negative
values that occurred using visibility of 40 km in the atmospheric
(4)
correction. Finally, it was observed higher frequency in values
greater than 4.0 m for image based on visibility of 40 km, what is
(5) not consistent with the data observed in the field work.
The atmospherically corrected image based on visibility of
40 km should not be used due to the high percentage of negative
pixels, which could disturb the results in models calibration. Fur-
thermore, the histogram using visibility of 40 km showed in-
compatibility with findings in the field. Based on Fig. 5 and Table 3,
the image corrected using visibility of 70 km presented better
results when compared to visibility of 100 km and 40 km, with
RMSE of 53.9% for SD and 21.6% for Kd. Fig. 9 shows RMSE values
and scatter plot between measured and calculated values for SD
(a) and Kd (b) based on selected models and image corrected by
visibility of 70 km. It is noteworthy that these results (RMSE,
measured versus calculated graphs, and histogram graphs) were
164 L.H.S. Rotta et al. / Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166

Fig. 7. Model calibration (a) and validation (b) for SD and model calibration (c) and validation for Kd.

Table 4 4.5. SD and Kd maps

RMSE for SD and Kd base on atmospheric corrected images using visibility of 40 km
(Vis40), 70 km (Vis70) and 100 km (Vis100).
The selected models for SD and Kd were applied to atmo-
RMSE spherically corrected image based on visibility of 70 km. Therefore,
SD (Fig. 10a) and Kd (Fig. 10b) maps were produced. The range of
Vis40 Vis70 Vis100 the legend were defined based on sample values collected in the
SD 207.2% 53.9% 56.3%
field, i.e. using the minimum and maximum values observed in the
Kd 20.1% 21.6% 27.1% field.
Higher SD values were observed in the tributaries of the Tietê
River, with values exceeding 3.0 m. In Tietê River, the SD values
were mostly between 1.0 and 2.0 m (Fig. 10a). According to vali-
obtained using the calibrated model based on simulated SPOT
dation, (Fig. 9) Kd provided a more accurate model, thereby the Kd
bands.
map (Fig. 10b) represented with more truth the horizontal dis-
The SD model when applied to SPOT image did not show points
well distributed in measured versus calculated graph (Fig. 9a). The tribution of water transparency in Nova Avanhandava Reservoir.
bad results for SD model validation may have occurred because Overall, lower Kd values were observed in the tributaries, corro-
atmospheric correction for the green band (560 nm) have been borating with higher transparency. However, there was a region in
more effective than for red band (660 nm). Therefore, when the the Bonito River with high Kd. This result is consistent taking into
ratio of these bands (560 nm/660 nm) is used, the model may not account the data observed in field, due to the presence of a sand
have been able to retrieve accurately the SD, with RMSE of 53.9%. mining company near P04 (see Fig. 1). The sand extraction from
In contrast, the validation for Kd (Fig. 9b) showed well-distributed the bottom of the river could accelerate the sediment re-suspen-
points along the line y ¼x, besides a satisfactory RMSE (21.6%) was sion which increases Kd values for the surrounding locations.
obtained. Therefore, the Kd map is consistent with the field observation.
 L.H.S. Rotta et al. / Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166 165

Fig. 8. Histogram of SD images based on atmospheric correction with visibility of 40 km (a), 70 km (b) and 100 km (c); and histogram of Kd images based on atmospheric
correction with visibility of 40 km (d), 70 km (e) and 100 km (f).

Fig. 9. Validation of atmospherically corrected image with visibility of 70 km based on models for SD (a) and Kd (b).

Fig. 10. Thematic maps showing the spatial distribution of SD (a) and Kd (b) using SPOT-6 image (Acquisition data: July 9th, 2013) in Nova Avanhandava Reservoir.
166 L.H.S. Rotta et al. / Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 4 (2016) 158–166
5. Conclusion
FLAASH proved to be a satisfactory tool for atmospheric cor-
rection of SPOT-6 images. The challenge faced was to establish an
appropriate initial visibility for atmospheric correction of SPOT
image. The main problem was the high amount of negative pixels
when the proper visibility was not adopted in the atmospheric
correction. Therefore, using the suitable initial visibility in the
atmospheric correction procedure is essential to avoid such pro-
blems, which would prevent the use of bio-optical models to es-
timate limnological variables of the water body.
The influence of the atmospheric correction on the accuracy of
the models to retrieve parameters about water transparency was
shown in this study. It was observed an optimal value for initial
visibility in atmospheric correction process that minimize the er-
rors in inverse models. However, the visibility used in atmospheric
correction may be different in other places and with other climate
conditions. The visibility of 70 km provided the most appropriate
correction on the satellite image, although attention should be
paid mainly to the negative values from non-appropriate adoption
of the visibility parameter. In this study, the use of visibility of
40 km in atmospheric correction created high amount of negative
pixels, which prevented the adoption of this image. Adopting a
low value for visibility, such as 40 km, the haze effect may be re-
moved exceedingly, so negative values can happen. The use of
visibility of 70 km showed better results than when used visibility
of 100 km, however there was no significant improvement, with
RMSE of 53.9% (visibility of 70 km) and 56.3% (visibility of 100 km)
for the SD and RMSE of 21.6% (visibility of 70 km) and 27.1% (vis-
ibility of 100 km) for Kd.
For future works is suggested to test similar procedures used in
this study for estimating optically active components with ecolo-
gical significance in water bodies, such as chlorophyll-a, dissolved
organic matter, and suspended solids concentrations. Therefore,
the influence of atmospheric correction on these variables could
be assessed.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank to São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP
(Project number: 2012/19821-1 and 2013/09045-7) and National
Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development - CNPq
(Projects numbers: 400881/2013-6, 472131/2012-5 and 482605/
2013-8) for financial support and CAPES for scholarship.
References
Adler-Golden, S.M., Matthew, M.W., Bernstein, L.S., Levine, R.Y., Berk, A., Richts-
meier, S.C., Acharya, P.K., Anderson, G.P., Felde, G., Gardner, J., Hike, M., Jeong, L.
S., Pukall, B., Mello, J., Ratkowski, A., Burke, H.-H., 1999. Atmospheric correction
for shortwave spectral imagery based on MODTRAN4. SPIE Proc. Imaging
Spectrom. 3753, 61–69.
Arlot, S., Celisse, A., 2010. A survey of cross-validation procedures for model se-
lection. Stat. Surv. 4, 40–79.
Astrium, 2013. SPOT 6 & SPOT 7 Imagery – User guide. Si/DC/13034-v1.0.
Bonansea, M., Ledesma, C., Rodríguez, C., Pinotti, L., Antunes, M., 2015. Effects of
atmospheric correction of Landsat imagery on lake water clarity assessment.
Adv. Space Res. 56, 2345–2355.
Brando, V.E., Dekker, A.G., 2003. Satellite hyperspectral remote sensing for esti-
mating estuarine and coastal water quality. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 41
(6), 1378–1387.
Chen, Q., Zhang, Y., Hallikainen, M., 2007. Water quality monitoring using remote
sensing in support of the EU water framework directive (WFD): a case study in
the Gulf of Finland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 124, 157–166.
Dall’Olmo, G., Gitelson, A.A., 2005. Effect of bio-optical parameter variability on the
remote estimation of chlorophyll-a concentration in turbid productive waters:
experimental results. Appl. Opt. 44 (3), 412–422.
Doxaran, D., Froidefond, J.-M., Lavender, S., Castaing, P., 2002. Spectral signature of
highly turbid waters. Application with SPOT data to quantify suspended par-
ticulate matter concentrations. Remote Sens. Environ. 81, 149–161.
Giardino, C., Pepe, M., Brivio, P.A., Ghezzi, P., Zilioli, E., 2001. Detecting chlorophyll,
Secchi disk depth and surface temperature in a sub-alpine lake using Landsat
imagery. Sci. Total Environ. 268 (1–3), 19–29.
Gitelson, A.A., Dall’Olmo, G., Moses, W., Rundquist, D.C., Barrow, T., Fisher, T.R.,
Gurlin, D., Holz, J., 2008. A simple semi-analytical model for remote estimation
of chlorophyll-a in turbid waters: validation. Remote Sens. Environ. 112,
3582–3593.
Goyens, C., Jamet, C., Schroeder, T., 2013. Evaluation of four atmospheric correction
algorithms for MODIS-Aqua images over contrasted coastal waters. Remote
Sens. Environ. 131, 63–75.
Guanter, L., Verdú, A.R., Odermatt, D., Giardino, C., Simis, S., Estellés, V., Heege, T.,
Gómez, J.A.D., Moreno, J., 2010. Atmospheric correction of ENVISAT/MERIS data
over inland waters: validation for European lakes. Remote Sens. Environ. 114,
467–480.
He, Q., Chen, C.A., 2014. New approach for atmospheric correction of MODIS ima-
gery in turbid coastal waters: a case study for the Pearl River Estuary. Remote
Sens. Lett. 5 (3), 249–257.
Hu, C., Muller-Karger, F.E., Andrefouet, S., Carder, K.L., 2001. Atmospheric correction
and cross-calibration of LANDSAT-7/ETM þ imagery over aquatic environ-
ments: a multiplatform approach using SeaWiFS/MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ.
78 (1–2), 99–107.
Hu, C., Carder, K.L., Muller-Karger, F.E., 2000. Atmospheric correction of SeaWiFS
imagery over turbid coastal waters: a practical method. Remote Sens. Environ.
74, 195–206.
ITT Visual Information Solutions, 2009. Atmosphere Correction Module: QUAC and
FLAASH User's Guide. Version 4.7.
Jamet, C., Loisel, H., Kuchinke, C.P., Ruddick, K., Zibordi, G., Feng, H., 2011. Com-
parison of three SeaWiFS atmospheric correction algorithms for turbid waters
using AERONET-OC measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 115 (8), 1955–1965.
Kirk, J.T.O., 2011. Light and Photosynthesis in Aquatic Ecosystems, third ed. Cam-
bridge University Press, New York.
Kutser, T., 2004. Quantitative detection of chlorophyll in cyanobacterial blooms by
satellite remote sensing. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49 (6), 2179–2189.
Kutser, T., 2012. The possibility of using the Landsat image archive for monitoring
long time trends in coloured dissolved organic matter concentration in lake
waters. Remote Sens. Environ. 123, 334–338.
Mobley, C.D., 1994. Light and Water: Radiative Transfer in Natural Waters. Aca-
demic Press, San Diego.
Moses, W.J., Gitelson, A.A., Perk, R.L., Gurlin, D., Rundquist, D.C., Leavitt, B.C., Bar-
row, T.M., Brakhage, P., 2012. Estimation of chlorophyll-a concentration in
turbid productive waters using airborne hyperspectral data. Water Res 46,
993–1004.
Ruddick, K.G., Ovidio, F., Rijkeboer, M., 2000. Atmospheric correction of SeaWiFS
imagery for turbid coastal and inland waters. Appl. Opt. 39 (6), 897–912.
Song, Y., Wang, J., Yang, K., Ma, M., Li, X., Zhang, Z., Wang, X., 2012. A revised surface
resistance parameterisation for estimating latent heat flux from remotely
sensed data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 17, 76–84.
Stone, M., 1974. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J.
R. Stat. Soc. Series B (Methodological) 36 (2), 111–147.
Tebbs, E.J., Remedios, J.J., Harper, D.M., 2013. Remote sensing of chlorophyll-a as a
measure of cyanobacterial biomass in Lake Bogoria, a hypertrophic, saline–al-
kaline, flamingo lake, using Landsat ETM. Remote Sens. Environ. 135, 92–106.
Wang, M., 1999. A sensitivity study of the SeaWiFS atmospheric correction algo-
rithm: effects of spectral band variations. Remote Sens. Environ. 67 (3),
348–359.
Watanabe, F.S.Y., Alcântara, E., Rodrigues, T.W.P., Imai, N.N., Barbosa, C.C.F., Rotta, L.
H.S., 2015. Estimation of chlorophyll-a concentration and the trophic state of
the Barra Bonita hydroelectric reservoir using OLI/Landsat-8 images. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 12 (9), 10391–10417.
Wicaksono, P., 2012. The effect of sunglint on satellite-based benthic habitat
identification. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Commun. Eng. 1 (6), 364–370.
J., Yuan, Z., Niu, 2008. Evaluation of Atmospheric Correction using FLAASH. Int.
Workshop on Earth Obs. Remote Sens. Appl. IEEE, Beijing.
Zhang, Z., He, G., Dai, Q., Jiang, H., 2014. Leaf area index estimation using MESMA
based on EO-1 hyperion satellite imagery. Int. J. Inf. Electron. Eng. 4 (1), 11–15.
Zheng, Z., Li, Y., Guo, Y., Xu, Y., Liu, G., Du, C., 2015. Landsat-based long-term
monitoring of total suspended matter concentration pattern change in the wet
season for Dongting Lake, China. Remote Sens. 7, 13975–13999.