Journal Article
From sample to sonde to Sentinel-2: insights from a multi-scale chlorophyll-a monitoring effort in the Hudson River, New York
Wilson B. Salls; Robert J. Welk; Tyler V. King; Natasha A. Scavotto; Rebecca M. Gorney; Sabina R. Gifford; Michael D. Stouder; Elizabeth A. Nystrom; Jennifer L. Graham
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · Vol. 198, Issue 1 · 2025
Abstract
Monitoring cyanobacteria and other nuisance phytoplankton in the Hudson River is of great interest given its societal and ecological importance. Satellite remote sensing provides a cost-effective method to monitor chlorophyll- a (chl-a), a common proxy for algal biomass; however, the dynamic nature of rivers complicates approaches traditionally applied to lakes and oceans. During 2021–2023, we collected discrete samples for laboratory measurement of chl-a and measured in situ chl-a fluorescence during a series of longitudinal boat surveys along a 220-km reach of the lower Hudson River. Surveys were timed to coincide with Sentinel-2 satellite overpasses. We first investigated relations between laboratory-measured chl-a concentration and field-measured chl-a fluorescence, observing a weak correlation ( r 2 = 0.25) that improved substantially after splitting data by day (mean r 2 = 0.53). Separately, to estimate chl-a fluorescence using satellite data, we developed a series of random forest models leveraging the rich fluorescence dataset collected. We tested three model types: individual day models, leave-one-out models trained on all days except a holdout test day, and a single pooled model trained on all days. Generally, individual day models exhibited lowest error (mean of mean absolute error [MAE] = 0.16 relative fluorescence units [RFU]), followed by the single pooled model (MAE = 0.22 RFU). Daily holdout models showed highest error (mean MAE = 0.40 RFU); this approach was intended to represent model performance on a day unseen in the training set, providing a more conservative estimate of performance than the more traditional pooled approach. Findings from both analyses emphasize the importance of considering temporal variability when modeling riverine systems.