Platform options of free-flying satellites, UAVs or the International Space Station for remote sensing assessment of the littoral zone

Over the years, making or creating a choice for a specific platform from which to conduct remote sensing observations of specific targets brings in many factors related to the target characteristics and how the data are going to be used. Attempts to measure Earth's diverse objects have generated a wide range of platform alternatives, from geostationary satellites to low-flying aircraft. Now several additional options possessing unique attributes are available: the International Space Station (ISS) and Un-inhabited Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). This paper explores some of the tradeoffs among these alternatives for the special problem of remotely sensing the littoral zone, but especially the shallow ecosystems. Though the surface area of the littoral zone is relatively large, it is geographically disbursed and somewhat linear. Also, the spatial, spectral and temporal variability of ecosystems in this zone is very high, and signals are masked by the overlying water column. Ideally, a frequent revisit time would be desirable to monitor their health and changing condition. These characteristics place important constraints on platform choice as one tries to design a system to monitor these critical ecosystems and provide useful information for managing them. This paper discusses these tradeoff issues as offered mainly by three platform choices: free-flying satellites, ISS, UAVs and other aircraft.

[1]  D. H. Card,et al.  Remote sensing of forest canopy and leaf biochemical contents , 1988 .

[2]  W H Smith,et al.  Digital array scanned interferometer: sensors and results. , 1996, Applied optics.

[3]  J. Gattuso,et al.  CARBON AND CARBONATE METABOLISM IN COASTAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS , 1998 .

[4]  Philip D. Hammer,et al.  Remote sensing of Earth's atmosphere and surface using a digital array scanned interferometer: A new type of imaging spectrometer , 1991 .

[5]  R. Wood THE ECOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OF REEFS , 1998 .

[6]  Wei Li,et al.  Spectral Signatures of Coral Reefs: Features from Space , 2001 .

[7]  F. Muller‐Karger,et al.  AVIRIS calibration and application in coastal oceanic environments - Tracers of soluble and particulate constituents of the Tampa Bay coastal plume , 1993 .

[8]  D. Lyzenga Remote sensing of bottom reflectance and water attenuation parameters in shallow water using aircraft and Landsat data , 1981 .

[9]  Stephen E. Dunagan,et al.  Surface reflectance mapping using interferometric spectral imagery from a remotely piloted aircraft , 2001, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[10]  H. Gordon,et al.  Removal of atmospheric effects from satellite imagery of the oceans. , 1978, Applied optics.

[11]  S. Lewis Herbivory on coral reefs: algal susceptibility to herbivorous fishes , 1985, Oecologia.

[12]  Chris D. Clark,et al.  Coral reef habitat mapping: how much detail can remote sensing provide? , 1997 .

[13]  Richard H. Waring,et al.  Overview of the Oregon Transect Ecosystem Research Project , 1994 .

[14]  D. Peterson NIR Spectroscopy in Space? , 2000 .

[15]  D. Peterson Forest Structure and Productivity along the Oregon Transect , 1997 .

[16]  K. Carder,et al.  Reflectance Model for Quantifying Chlorophyll- a in the Presence of Productivity Degradation Products , 1991 .

[17]  R. W. Austin,et al.  Nimbus-7 Coastal Zone Color Scanner: System Description and Initial Imagery , 1980, Science.

[18]  K. K. Mayo,et al.  Remote sensing for planning and managing the great barrier reef of Australia , 1985 .

[19]  S. Klooster,et al.  The Airborne Ocean Color Imager - System description and image processing , 1992 .