Avard, M.M., Schiebe, F.R., and Everitt, J.H., 2000. Quantification of Chlorophyll in
Reservoirs of the Little Washita Watershed Using Airborne Video. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66(2): 213-218.
Beeton, A.M. and Edmonson, W.T., 1972. The Eutrophication Problem. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 29: 673-682.
Brezonik, P.L. and Shannon, E.E., 1971. Trophic State of Lakes in North Central Florida.
Water Resources Research Center Publication 13, 102pp.
Campbell, J.B., 1996. Introduction to Remote Sensing. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London,
622 pp.
Carlson, R.E., 1977. A Trophic State Index for Lakes. Limnology and Oceanography,
22(2): 361-369.
Carlson,R.E.,1983.Discussion:“Using DifferencesAmong Carlson’sTrophicState
Index Values in Regional Water Quality Assessments”by Richard A.Osgood.Water
Resources Bulletin, 19(2): 307-308.
Carlson,R.E.and Simpson,J.,1996.A Coordinator’sGuideto VolunteerLake
Monitoring Methods. North American Lake Management Society, 96 pp.
Chavez, P.S., 1975. Atmospheric, Solar, and M.T.F. Corrections for ERTS Digital
Imagery. Proceedings, American Society of Photogrammetry, pp. 69-69a.
Ekstrand, S., 1992. Landsat TM Based Quantification of Chlorophyll-a During Algae
Blooms in Coastal Waters. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 13(10):
1913-1926.
EPAOW (EnvironmentalProtection Agency’sOfficeofWater),2000.TrophicStates,
Internet Web Site:http://www.epa.gov/305b/trophic.html.
FCPM (Florida Center for Public Management), Florida State University, 2000. Strategic
Assessment of Florida's Environment (SAFE), Internet Web Site:
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~cpm/safe/environ/swq4.html.
Gakstatter, J.H., Allum, M.O. and Omernik, J.M., 1975. Lake Eutrophication: Results
From the National Eutrophication Survey. Corvallis Environmental Research Lab.,
USEPA, Corvallis, Oregon, 32pp.
Han, L., 1997. Spectral Reflectance With Varying Suspended Sediment Concentrations in
Clear and Algae-Laden Waters. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,
63(6): 701-705.
Han, L. and Rundquist, D.C., 1997. Comparison of NIR/Red Ratio and First Derivative
of Reflectance in Estimating Algal-Chlorophyll Concentration: A Case Study in a
Turbid Reservoir. Remote Sensing of Environment, 62: 253-261.
KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment), Division of Environment, 2001.
TMDL Data for the Lower Big Blue Subbasin, Internet Web Site:
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/tmdl/bblue.htm.
Kimmel, B.L. and Groeger, A.W., 1984. Factors Controlling Primary Production in Lakes
and Reservoirs, A Perspective. In Proc. North American Lake Management Society,
EPA 440/5/84-001, Washington, D.C., 277-281.
Lavery, P., Pattiaratchi, C., Wyllie, A., and Hick P., 1993. Water Quality Monitoring in
Estuarine Waters Using the Landsat Thematic Mapper. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 46:265-280.
Lillesand, T.M., Johnson, W.L., Deuell, R.L., Lindstorm, O.M., and Meisner, D.E., 1983.
Use of Landsat Data to Predict the Trophic State of Minnesota Lakes.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 49(2):219-229.
Novotny, V. and Olem H., 1994. Water Quality. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
1,054pp.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development), 1982.
Eutrophication of Waters: Monitoring, Assessment and Control. OECD, Paris, 154pp.
OPP (Office of Planning and Prevention), Division of Environment, Kansas, 2000. Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), Internet Web Site:
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/tmdl/ualake.htm.
Osgood,R.A.,1982.Using DifferencesAmong Carlson’sTrophicStateIndex Values in
Regional Water Quality Assessment. Water Resources Bulletin, 18(1):67-74.
Tassan, S., 1993. An Improved In-Water Algorithm for the Determination of Chlorophyll
and Suspended Sediment Concentration from Thematic Mapper Data in Coastal
Waters. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 14(6):1221-1229.
Thiemann, S. and Kaufmann, H., 2000. Determination of Chlorophyll Content and
Trophic State of Lakes Using Field Spectrometer and IRS-1C Satellite Data in the
Mecklenburg Lake District, Germany. Remote Sensing of Environment, 73: 227-235.
Zakova, Z., Berankova, D., Kockova, E., and Kriz P., 1993. Influence of Diffuse
Pollution on the Eutrophication and Water Quality of Reservoirs in the Morava River
Basin. Water Science and Technology, 28(3-5), 79-90.
Table 1. Statistical properties of water quality data (Jan. 1991Jan. 1997) of the Te-Chi Reservoir.
Parameter minimum maximum mean standard
deviation
SDD (m) 0.3 7.2 2.82 1.50
Chla (g/)) 1.14 1560 67.68 172.71
TP (g/)) 3 444 35.35 51.01
Table 2. Characteristics of the Landsat TM data.
Band Spectral Wavelength(micrometers) Spatial Resolution (meters)
TM1 0.45-0.52 (blue) 30
TM2 0.52-0.60 (green) 30
TM3 0.63-0.69 (red) 30
TM4 0.76-0.90 (near infrared) 30
TM5 1.55-1.75 (mid infrared) 30
TM6 10.40-12.50 (far infrared) 120
TM7 2.08-2.35 (mid infrared) 30
Table 3. Carlson trophic state index and associated parameters for the Te-Chi Reservoirand Carlson’sstudy.
TSI SDD (m) Chla*(g/) TP*(g/) Chla**(g/) TP**(g/)
0 64 0.001 0.01 0.04 0.75
10 32 0.008 0.05 0.12 1.5
20 16 0.064 0.24 0.34 3
30 8 0.53 1.26 0.94 6
40 4 4.47 6.49 2.6 12
50 2 37 33 6.4 24
60 1 313 172 20 48
70 0.5 2,613 886 56 96
80 0.25 21,851 4,560 154 192
90 0.125 182,705 23,475 427 384
100 0.0625 1,527,652 120,853 1,183 768
*Parameter values (calculated using Eqs. (8b) and (8c)) for Te-Chi Reservoir.
**Parametervalues(calculated using Eqs.(4)and (5))forMinnesota’slakes (Carlson, 1977).
Table 4. Modified Carlson trophic state index and associated parameters for Te-Chi Reservoir.
TSI SDD (m) Chla(g/) TP (g/)
0 42 0.003 0.03
10 27 0.012 0.07
20 18 0.045 0.20
30 11 0.170 0.54
40 7.39 0.645 1.52
50 4.79 2.44 4.25
60 3.10 9.23 12
70 2.01 35 33
80 1.30 132 92
90 0.84 500 258
100 0.55 1,893 721
Table 5. Minimum brightness values for the TM images used in this study.
Minimum Brightness Values
Image Date TM1 TM2 TM3 TM4
31/08/1993 54 16 13 4
05/10/1994 51 14 10 4
09/01/1995 42 12 10 2
22/07/1996 48 13 11 2
Table 6. Measurements of concentration of total suspended solid (unit: NTU).
Location Image Date
S6 S18 S28 S39 R4
31/08/1993 5 8 23 NA* 74
05/10/1994 5 11 13 30 37
09/01/1995 0 1 5 4 8
22/07/1996 4 9 4 31 66
*Data not available.
Table 7. Trophic state classes for the Te-Chi reservoir
Trophic State Classes TSI*Range Chla Range (g/)
Oligotrophic TSI < 53 Chla < 3.7
Mesotrophic 53TSI < 61 3.7Chla < 10.8 Meso-eutrophic 61TSI < 66 10.8Chla < 21.1
Eutrophic 66TSI < 78 21.1Chla < 105 Polyeutrophic 78TSI < 94 105Chla < 885
Hypereutrophic 94TSI 885Chla
*TSI values are calculated using Model B.
Figure 1. Map of the study area and water sampling locations.
S6 S18
S28 S39
R4
dam
0 1 2 km
Figure 2. Regression relationship of SDD versus Chla for the Te-Chi Reservoir.
Chla
ln (g /)
-1.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
lnSDD(m)
Chla SDD 1.8751 0.3264 ln
ln
Figure 3. Regression relationship of Chla (g/) versus TP (g/) for the Te-Chi Reservoir.
TP ln
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5
TP Chla 0 . 9816 1 . 2961 ln
ln
lnChla
Figure 4. Comparison of regression models of lnSDD vs lnChla for The Te-Chi Reservoirand Carlson’sstudy.
64 4.16
(0, 2.04)
(0,1.8751) Carlson’sstudy Te-Chi Reservoir
0.0625 -2.77 lnChla
-7.0 -3.116 0 7.077 14.239
0.001 0.04 1 1183 1527652
lnSDD
SDD(m)
Chla(g/)
Figure 5. Comparison of water quality measurements and their TM-derived estimates. (Units areg/for Chla and TP and m for SDD.)
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Measurements
Figure 6. Examples of TM-derived TSI images.
64
Figure 7. Comparison of the three pixel-average-TSI indices.
0
Figure 8. Comparison of trophic state classes derived from Chla measurements and from TM data.
TSIderivedfromLandsatTMdata
TSI derived from measurements of chlorophyll concentration
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
Meso-eutrophic
Eutrophic
Polyeutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Mesotrophic
Figure 9. Ttrophic state classes from upstream to outlet of the reservoir.
S28 R4 S6
S39 Dam
S18
（a）10/01/1995
（b）22/07/1996
Mesotrohpic Meso-eutrophic
Eutrophic Polyeutrophic Hypereutrophic