[go: up one dir, main page]

 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (97)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = drifter

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
16 pages, 17635 KiB  
Article
Influence of Ocean Current Features on the Performance of Machine Learning and Dynamic Tracking Methods in Predicting Marine Drifter Trajectories
by Huan Lin, Weiye Yu and Zhan Lian
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(11), 1933; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12111933 - 28 Oct 2024
Viewed by 607
Abstract
Accurately and rapidly predicting marine drifter trajectories under conditions of information scarcity is critical for addressing maritime emergencies and conducting marine surveys with resource-limited unmanned vessels. Machine learning-based tracking methods, such as Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTM), offer a promising approach for trajectory [...] Read more.
Accurately and rapidly predicting marine drifter trajectories under conditions of information scarcity is critical for addressing maritime emergencies and conducting marine surveys with resource-limited unmanned vessels. Machine learning-based tracking methods, such as Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTM), offer a promising approach for trajectory prediction in such scenarios. This study combines satellite observations and idealized simulations to compare the predictive performance of LSTM with a resource-dependent dynamic tracking method (DT). The results indicate that when driven solely by historical drifter paths, LSTM achieves better trajectory predictions when trained and tested on relative trajectory intervals rather than the absolute positions of individual trajectory points. In general, LSTM provides a more accurate geometric pattern of trajectories at the initial stages of forecasting, while DT offers superior accuracy in predicting specific trajectory positions. The velocity and curvature of ocean currents jointly influence the prediction quality of both methods. In regions characterized by active sub-mesoscale dynamics, such as the fast-flowing and meandering Kuroshio Current and Kuroshio Current Extension, DT predicts more reliable trajectory patterns but lacks precision in detailed position estimates compared to LSTM. However, in areas dominated by the fast but relatively straight North Equatorial Current, the performance of the two methods reverses. The two methods also demonstrate different tolerances for noise and sampling intervals. This study establishes a baseline for selecting machine learning methods for marine drifter prediction and highlights the limitations of AI-based predictions under data-scarce and resource-constrained conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Scope of the study region. The surface wind-driven primary ocean currents in this region include the Kuroshio Current (KC), the Kuroshio Current Extension (KCE), the California Current (CC), and the North Equatorial Current (NEC).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Spatial distribution of the number of all the segmented drifter trajectories from January 2011 to December 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The architecture of an LSTM cell, including the forget gate <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>f</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, the input gate <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>i</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and the output gate <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>o</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. ⮾ and ⊕ denote dot product and addition by element, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Schematic diagram of <span class="html-italic">SS</span> metrics. Y represents the true trajectory, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">Y</mi> </mrow> <mo>^</mo> </mover> </mrow> </semantics></math> represents the predicted trajectory.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparisons between <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> and <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>LSTM</sub>. The blue and red dashed line represent the mean of <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>LSTM</sub>, and <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub>, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Box plot for the Δ<span class="html-italic">Traj</span> and <span class="html-italic">Traj</span> dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">SS</span> for different prediction lengths; (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">SE</span> for different prediction lengths. The pink and blue bar charts represent the distribution of evaluation values for trajectories predicted using LSTM and DT, respectively. The solid pink line indicates the mean, while the dashed light blue line indicates the median. The red curve shows the variation in the difference between the mean evaluation values of the two methods, using the right Y-axis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial distribution of the difference between <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> and <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>DT</sub>; (<b>b</b>) relative change in <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> with respect to <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>DT</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial distribution of the difference between <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> and <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>DT</sub>; (<b>b</b>) relative change in <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> with respect to <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>DT</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial distribution of the difference between <span class="html-italic">SE</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> and <span class="html-italic">SE</span><sub>DT</sub>; (<b>b</b>) relative change in <span class="html-italic">SE</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> with respect to <span class="html-italic">SE</span><sub>DT</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Spatial distribution of the equal-step number between <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> and <span class="html-italic">SS</span><sub>DT</sub>; (<b>b</b>) spatial distribution of the equal-step number between <span class="html-italic">SE</span><sub>ΔLSTM</sub> and <span class="html-italic">SE</span><sub>DT</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Spatial distribution of drifter speeds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Spatial distribution of trajectory curvatures.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Spatial distribution of mean FSLE during 2011–2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Idealized ocean current fields. (<b>a</b>) Fast and straight current, (<b>b</b>) fast and curved current, (<b>c</b>) slow and curved current. The black lines denote the particle drifting paths. Note that the color bars for current speed differ between the panels.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Influence of different time resolution and noise level on prediction in fast and straight current field. The red solid line represents the <span class="html-italic">SS</span>, while the blue solid line indicates the <span class="html-italic">SE</span>. Triangular markers denote the predictions from the DT model, while circular markers denote predictions from the LSTM model. The red and blue bar charts represent the |SS<sub>LSTM</sub> − SS<sub>DT</sub>| and |<span class="html-italic">SE</span><sub>LSTM</sub> − <span class="html-italic">SE</span><sub>DT</sub>|, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Influence of different time resolution and noise level on prediction in fast and curved current field.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Influence of different time resolution and noise level on prediction in slow and curved current field.</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 26098 KiB  
Article
Flow Field Analysis and Development of a Prediction Model Based on Deep Learning
by Yingjie Yu, Xiufeng Zhang, Lucai Wang, Rui Tian, Xiaobin Qian, Dongdong Guo and Yanwei Liu
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(11), 1929; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12111929 - 28 Oct 2024
Viewed by 534
Abstract
The velocity of ocean currents significantly affects the trajectory prediction of ocean drifters and the safe navigation of intelligent vessels. Currently, most ocean current predictions focus on time-based forecasts at specific fixed points. In this study, deep learning based on the flow field [...] Read more.
The velocity of ocean currents significantly affects the trajectory prediction of ocean drifters and the safe navigation of intelligent vessels. Currently, most ocean current predictions focus on time-based forecasts at specific fixed points. In this study, deep learning based on the flow field prediction model (CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs) is proposed, which predicts the changes in ocean currents by learning from historical flow fields. Unlike conventional models that focus on single-point current velocity data, the CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs model focuses on the ocean surface current information within a specific area. The CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs model integrates multiple convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in parallel, multi-head attention (MHA), and bidirectional long short-term memory networks (BiLSTMs). The model demonstrated exceptional modelling capabilities in handling spatiotemporal features. The proposed model was validated by comparing its predictions with those predicted by the MIKE21 flow model of the ocean area within proximity to Dalian Port (which used a commercial numerical model), as well as those predicted by other deep learning algorithms. The results showed that the model offers significant advantages and efficiency in simulating and predicting ocean surface currents. Moreover, the accuracy of regional flow field prediction improved with an increase in the number of sampling points used for training. The proposed CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs model can provide theoretical support for maritime search and rescue, the control or path planning of Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs), as well as protecting offshore structures in the future. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Architecture of the CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Basic framework and structure of the study scheme.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Dalian Port shoreline electronic nautical chart and bathymetric map of the sampling area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Two-dimensional unstructured meshes used for discretization of the computational domain in Dalian.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
<p>Two-dimensional unstructured meshes used for discretization of the computational domain in Dalian.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Water depth distribution and flow velocity vectors of the computational domain in Dalian.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Tide height chart for Laohutan from 15 January 2024 (08:00) to 16 January 2024 (08:00).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Current speed chart for Dasanshan Channel from 15 January 2024 (08:00) to 16 January 2024 (08:00).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Current direction chart for the Dasanshan Channel from 15 January 2024 (08:00) to 16 January 2024 (08:00).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Lianyungang shoreline electronic nautical chart and bathymetric map of the sampling area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Two-dimensional unstructured meshes used for discretization of the computational domain in Lianyungang.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Water depth distribution and flow velocity vectors of the computational domain in Lianyungang.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Tide height chart for Lianyungang from 9 April 2024 (00:00) to 10 April 2024 (00:00).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Current speed chart for Lianyungang from 9 April 2024 (00:00) to 10 April 2024 (00:00).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Current direction chart for Lianyungang from 9 April 2024 (00:00) to 10 April 2024 (00:00).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>The 10 km × 10 km area selected for model training and testing purposes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Comparison of single-point current velocity prediction results in Dasanshan.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Comparison of the single-point current direction prediction results in Dasanshan.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Comparison of the MAPE for each numerical model obtained from 10 rounds of testing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Comparison of the RMSE for each numerical model obtained from 10 rounds of testing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Comparison of the R<sup>2</sup> for each numerical model obtained from 10 rounds of testing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Comparison of the <span class="html-italic">u</span> velocity component of two-dimensional flow fields predicted by various deep learning models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Comparison of the <span class="html-italic">u</span> velocity component of two-dimensional flow fields predicted by the CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs model for different numbers of sampling points and those calculated by the MIKE21 FM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 23
<p>Comparison of velocity vectors of the two-dimensional flow field predicted by the CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs and MIKE21 FM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24
<p>Comparison of the results predicted by the CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs and MIKE21 FM at three validation points.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24 Cont.
<p>Comparison of the results predicted by the CNNs–MHA–BiLSTMs and MIKE21 FM at three validation points.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 11154 KiB  
Article
Impact of a New Wave Mixing Scheme on Ocean Dynamics in Typhoon Conditions: A Case Study of Typhoon In-Fa (2021)
by Wei Chen, Jie Chen, Jian Shi, Suyun Zhang, Wenjing Zhang, Jingmin Xia, Hanshi Wang, Zhenhui Yi, Zhiyuan Wu and Zhicheng Zhang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(17), 3298; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16173298 - 5 Sep 2024
Viewed by 1016
Abstract
Wave-induced mixing can enhance vertical mixing in the upper ocean, facilitating the exchange of heat and momentum between the surface and deeper layers, thereby influencing ocean circulation and climate patterns. Building on previous research, this study proposes a wave-induced mixing parameterization scheme (referred [...] Read more.
Wave-induced mixing can enhance vertical mixing in the upper ocean, facilitating the exchange of heat and momentum between the surface and deeper layers, thereby influencing ocean circulation and climate patterns. Building on previous research, this study proposes a wave-induced mixing parameterization scheme (referred to as EXP3) specifically designed for typhoon periods. This scheme was integrated into the fully coupled ocean–wave–atmosphere model COAWST and applied to analyze Typhoon In-Fa (2021) as a case study. The simulation results were validated against publicly available data, demonstrating a good overall match with observed phenomena. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was conducted between the EXP3 scheme, the previous scheme (EXP2) and the original model scheme (EXP1). Validation against Argo and Drifter buoy data revealed that both EXP2 and EXP3, which include wave-induced mixing effects, resulted in a decrease in the simulated mixed layer depth (MLD) and mixed layer temperature (MLT), with EXP3 showing closer alignment with the observed data. Compared to the other two experiments, EXP3 enhanced vertical motion in the ocean due to intensified wave-induced mixing, leading to increased upper-layer water divergence and upwelling, a decrease in sea surface temperature and accelerated rightward deflection of surface currents. This phenomenon not only altered the temperature structure of the ocean surface layer but also significantly impacted the regional ocean dynamics. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of COAWST: (<b>a</b>) Data exchange rationale for the COAWST model; (<b>b</b>) layout of the experimental setup for the COAWST model in this paper.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the COAWST computational domain and nested grids.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Map of the study area: (<b>a</b>) typhoon track and intensity; (<b>b</b>) location of selected Argo buoys and analysis points; (<b>c</b>) Jason-3 satellite altimeter track; (<b>d</b>) yrack of selected Drifter buoy.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Spatial distribution of SWH during the typhoon transit (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) (black arrows indicate the wave direction, and colors indicate the SWH intensity).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Evaluation of simulated SWH data against observations from the Jason-3 satellite (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Spatial distribution of sea surface velocities during typhoon transit (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Difference between simulated SST values and OISST values during typhoon transit. The left column (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>g</b>) represents the results of the EXP1 scheme, the middle column (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>h</b>) represents the results of the EXP2 scheme and the right column (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>i</b>) represents the results of the EXP3 scheme. Each row corresponds to a different time period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Spatial distribution of sea surface temperature differences due to wave mixing during typhoon transit (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>): (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>e</b>) the simulation results of EXP3-EXP1; (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) the simulation results of EXP2-EXP1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of simulated and buoy-measured temperature profiles A1–A6), and the dashed line is the depth of the mixed layer under this experiment (following the buoy position in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03298-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>d).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Km and Kh at selected buoy locations (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>MLD, MLT time series plots of Argo observations versus two experiments (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>). Scatter plots of buoy observations of MLD and MLT versus model results and the associated linear best-fit lines (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>). Observations were taken from buoys that were within the typhoon’s influence during the typhoon (locations of buoys are shown in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03298-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>d).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Time series plots of temperature variations at different sites and experimental protocols: (<b>a</b>) EXP1 at site B1; (<b>b</b>) EXP1 at site B2; (<b>c</b>) EXP2-EXP1 at site B1; (<b>d</b>) EXP2-EXP1 at site B2; (<b>e</b>) EXP3-EXP1 at site B1; and (<b>f</b>) EXP3-EXP1 at site B2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Comparison of simulated and buoy-measured sea surface current velocities (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) (Corresponding to buoys D1 through D4 shown in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03298-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>d).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Surface flow vector fields (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) before, during, and after the typhoon (green asterisks indicate the location of the typhoon, black arrows indicate results for EXP1, blue arrows indicate results for EXP2 and red arrows indicate results for EXP3).</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 2070 KiB  
Article
A Parallelized Climatological Drifter-Based Model of Sargassum Biomass Dynamics in the Tropical Atlantic
by Karl Payne, Khalil Greene and Hazel A. Oxenford
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(7), 1214; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12071214 - 19 Jul 2024
Viewed by 1113
Abstract
The movement and biomass fluctuations of sargassum across the Tropical Atlantic have profound implications when influxes reach the Eastern Caribbean. These influxes have cross-cutting impacts across ecological, economic, and social systems. The objective of this work is to quantify sargassum biomass accumulation in [...] Read more.
The movement and biomass fluctuations of sargassum across the Tropical Atlantic have profound implications when influxes reach the Eastern Caribbean. These influxes have cross-cutting impacts across ecological, economic, and social systems. The objective of this work is to quantify sargassum biomass accumulation in the Eastern Caribbean, accounting for the spatial variability in sea surface temperature and morphotype diversity. A parallel implementation of a climatological drifter-based model was used to simulate advection of sargassum across the model domain. After determining the trajectory of virtual sargassum particles, Monte Carlo simulations using 1000 realizations were run to quantify biomass accumulations along these tracks. For simulations with a single morphotype, the biomass accumulation as predicted by the model effectively reproduced the seasonal distributions of sargassum for the simulated period (May 2017 to August 2017). The model closely approximated an observed increase during the period from May to July 2017, followed by a subsequent decline in sargassum abundance. A major factor that led to the discrepancy between the simulated and observed biomass accumulation is the occlusion of the optical satellite signal from cloud cover, which led to underestimates of sargassum abundance. The mean maximum growth rate required to reproduce the observed sargassum biomass was 0.05 day−1, which is consistent with other published experimental and computational studies that have reported similar growth rates for sargassum populations under comparable environmental conditions. An innovative aspect of this study was the investigation of the biomass dynamics of the three dominant morphotypes found in the study area. The results from these simulations show that the accumulation of the fastest growing morphotype, Sargassum fluitans var. fluitans, closely approximates the profiles of the overall prediction with a single morphotype. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Marine Biology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map showing the Central Atlantic study area and the Eastern Caribbean prediction region (red outline).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Comparison of run time of serial and parallel codes for tracking Lagrangian particles with particles varying between 200 and 2000 (<b>A</b>) and speed-up achieved through parallelization of Lagrangian tracking algorithm (<b>B</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Predicted (red line) and observed sargassum biomass (blue line) in the Eastern Caribbean for the period May–August 2017. The black line indicates the predicted biomass of 11.2 kt for 10 July 2017.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of detected cloud cover (black line) and sargassum biomass (blue line) from satellite imagery for the period May–August 2017.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Predicted (red line) and observed sargassum biomass (blue line) in the Eastern Caribbean for the period November 2021 to February 2022. The black line indicates the predicted biomass of 2.4 kt for 25 January 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of detected cloud cover (black line) and sargassum biomass (blue line) from satellite imagery for the period November 2021–February 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of biomass predictions for three morphotypes (<b>left</b>) and single-morphotype prediction and observation (<b>right</b>) for the period 1 May–1 August 2017 (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>) and 3 November 2021–3 February 2022 (<b>C</b>,<b>D</b>). The black line indicates predictions for (<b>A</b>), 10 July 2017, 20.3 kt (<span class="html-italic">S. fluitans</span> var. <span class="html-italic">fluitans</span>—18.2 kt, <span class="html-italic">S. natans</span> var. <span class="html-italic">natans</span>—1.6 kt, and <span class="html-italic">S. natans</span> var. <span class="html-italic">wingei</span>—0.5 kt), compared to (<b>B</b>) 11.2 kt and (<b>C</b>) 25 January 2022, 3.9 kt (<span class="html-italic">S. fluitans</span> var. <span class="html-italic">fluitans</span>—3.6 kt, <span class="html-italic">S. natans</span> var. <span class="html-italic">natans</span>—0.2 kt, and <span class="html-italic">S. natans</span> var. <span class="html-italic">wingei</span>—0.1 kt) compared to (<b>D</b>) 2.4 kt.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 7747 KiB  
Article
Assessment of OMA Gap-Filling Performances for Multiple and Single Coastal HF Radar Systems: Validation with Drifter Data in the Ligurian Sea
by Lorenzo Corgnati, Maristella Berta, Zoi Kokkini, Carlo Mantovani, Marcello G. Magaldi, Anne Molcard and Annalisa Griffa
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(13), 2458; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16132458 - 4 Jul 2024
Viewed by 1532
Abstract
High-frequency radars (HFRs) provide remote information on ocean surface velocity in extended coastal areas at high resolutions in space (O(km)) and time (O(h)). They directly produce radial velocities (in the radar antenna’s direction) combined to provide total vector velocities [...] Read more.
High-frequency radars (HFRs) provide remote information on ocean surface velocity in extended coastal areas at high resolutions in space (O(km)) and time (O(h)). They directly produce radial velocities (in the radar antenna’s direction) combined to provide total vector velocities in areas covered by at least two radars. HFRs are a key element in ocean observing systems, with several important environmental applications. Here, we provide an assessment of the HFR-TirLig network in the NW Mediterranean Sea, including results from the gap-filling open-boundary modal analysis (OMA) using in situ velocity data from drifters. While the network consists of three radars, only two were active during the assessment experiment, so the test also includes an area where the radial velocities from only one radar system were available. The results, including several metrics, both Eulerian and Lagrangian, and configurations, show that the network performance is very satisfactory and compares well with the previous results in the literature in terms of both the radial and total combined vector velocities where the coverage is adequate, i.e., in the area sampled by two radars. Regarding the OMA results, not only do they perform equally well in the area sampled by the two radars but they also provide results in the area covered by one radar only. Even though obviously deteriorated with respect to the case of adequate coverage, the OMA results can still provide information regarding the velocity structure and speed as well as virtual trajectories, which can be of some use in practical applications. A general discussion on the implications of the results for the potential of remote sensing velocity estimation in terms of HFR network configurations and complementing gap-filling analysis is provided. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) The study area with the Tyrrhenian and Ligurian basins and the main circulation patterns (NC, WCC, and TC). Blue colors show EMODnet 2022 bathymetric data (<a href="https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu" target="_blank">https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu</a>, accessed on 30 June 2024). The black rectangle shows the area in the right panel; (<b>b</b>) close-up showing the coverage map of the three radar stations along with their locations and the drifter trajectories color-coded according to their speed <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>U</mi> <mi>d</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> (m/s).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Selection of the domain for the application of OMA method. The grid cell colors represent the percent coverage in time of the total velocity vectors measured by the HFR network from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. The open boundary is painted in red, and the closed boundary is painted in blue.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of the daily-averaged combined total velocity field (<b>a</b>) versus the daily-averaged OMA gap-filled total velocity field (<b>b</b>) on 3 May 2019. The tracks of the drifters released during the experiment are superimposed in yellow. The gap in the combined velocity field is due to a poor geometry along the baseline between TINO and VIAR stations, i.e., high GDOP values filtered out by the QC procedures. This gap is filled by the OMA technique in the right panel.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Domains used for comparison between HFR velocity fields and drifter velocities. The O sub-domain is highlighted in yellow, while the F–O sub-domain is highlighted in red. The union of the two domains, i.e., yellow plus red, is the F domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison between radar and drifter radial velocities for the two stations: VIAR upper panels; TINO lower panels. Scatterplots (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and locations (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) of the compared pairs are shown for VIAR and TINO, respectively, color-coded according to the absolute difference between radar and drifter velocities. The coefficients a and b in the insets indicate the slope and intercept of the scatterplot regression lines.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison between radar and drifter total vector velocities in terms of scatterplots (left) and locations (right) of the compared pairs color-coded according to the absolute difference between radar and drifter velocities. The coefficients a and b in the scatterplot insets indicate the slope and intercept of the regression lines: (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) for <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold">U</mi> <mrow> <mi>H</mi> <mi>F</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> in O sub-domain; (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) for <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold">U</mi> <mrow> <mi>O</mi> <mi>M</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> in O sub-domain; (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) for <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold">U</mi> <mrow> <mi>O</mi> <mi>M</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> in F–O sub-domain; (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) for <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="bold">U</mi> <mrow> <mi>O</mi> <mi>M</mi> <mi>A</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math> in F domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Statistical results in terms of RMS of the difference <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">Δ</mi> </semantics></math> and the zero-lag correlation <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>ρ</mi> <mn>0</mn> <mn>2</mn> </msubsup> </semantics></math> for all variables and configurations. The gray shaded area is for <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>ρ</mi> <mn>0</mn> <mn>2</mn> </msubsup> </semantics></math> values smaller than 0.5. The ideal radial point for VIAR (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>r</mi> <mi>m</mi> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">Δ</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 0.06 m/s, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>ρ</mi> <mn>0</mn> <mn>2</mn> </msubsup> </semantics></math> = 0.74) is below and hidden by the other points nearby.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Statistical results in terms of bias and RMS of the difference <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">Δ</mi> </semantics></math> for all variables and configurations. The gray shaded area is for <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>r</mi> <mi>m</mi> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">Δ</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> values larger than 0.125. Some points (<span class="html-italic">u</span> measured in both F and F–O domains and <span class="html-italic">v</span> measured in the F–O domain) are not visible as they have values equal to the corresponding ideal configurations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Statistical results in terms of the ratio between RMS of the difference <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">Δ</mi> </semantics></math> and the zero-lag correlation <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>ρ</mi> <mn>0</mn> <mn>2</mn> </msubsup> </semantics></math> for all variables and configurations. The gray shaded area is for <math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>ρ</mi> <mn>0</mn> <mn>2</mn> </msubsup> </semantics></math> values smaller than 0.5.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison between real RD and virtual VD drifter trajectories in (<b>a</b>) Domain O and (<b>b</b>) Domain F–O and (<b>c</b>) the Skill Score in both domains. In gray is the mean absolute distance covered by all the real drifters, and in blue and red the mean separation distance <span class="html-italic">d</span> between drifter- and virtual radar-based trajectories for Domain O and F–O, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 7943 KiB  
Article
Decomposition of Submesoscale Ocean Wave and Current Derived from UAV-Based Observation
by Sin-Young Kim, Jong-Seok Lee, Youchul Jeong and Young-Heon Jo
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(13), 2275; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16132275 - 21 Jun 2024
Viewed by 740
Abstract
The consecutive submesoscale sea surface processes observed by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) were used to decompose into spatial waves and current features. For the image decomposition, the Fast and Adaptive Multidimensional Empirical Mode Decomposition (FA-MEMD) method was employed to disintegrate multicomponent signals [...] Read more.
The consecutive submesoscale sea surface processes observed by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) were used to decompose into spatial waves and current features. For the image decomposition, the Fast and Adaptive Multidimensional Empirical Mode Decomposition (FA-MEMD) method was employed to disintegrate multicomponent signals identified in sea surface optical images into modulated signals characterized by their amplitudes and frequencies. These signals, referred to as Bidimensional Intrinsic Mode Functions (BIMFs), represent the inherent two-dimensional oscillatory patterns within sea surface optical data. The BIMFs, separated into seven modes and a residual component, were subsequently reconstructed based on the physical frequencies. A two-dimensional Fast Fourier Transform (2D FFT) for each high-frequency mode was used for surface wave analysis to illustrate the wave characteristics. Wavenumbers (Kx, Ky) ranging between 0.01–0.1 radm−1 and wave directions predominantly in the northeastward direction were identified from the spectral peak ranges. The Optical Flow (OF) algorithm was applied to the remaining consecutive low-frequency modes as the current signal under 0.1 Hz for surface current analysis and to estimate a current field with a 1 m spatial resolution. The accuracy of currents in the overall region was validated with in situ drifter measurements, showing an R-squared (R2) value of 0.80 and an average root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.03 ms−1. This study proposes a novel framework for analyzing individual sea surface dynamical processes acquired from high-resolution UAV imagery using a multidimensional signal decomposition method specialized in nonlinear and nonstationary data analysis. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Study area located off the coast of South Sea of Korea with a rias coast. (<b>b</b>) The red box in (<b>a</b>) indicates the survey area, Nodae-do, with a group of islands around. (<b>c</b>) Three-dimensional bathymetric contour map of the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Raw images of the study area obtained from the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in the three regions I, II, and III. (<b>a</b>) The south coast of Sangnodae-do, (<b>b</b>) between Sangnodae-do and Hanodae-do, and (<b>c</b>) the southern coast of Hanodae-do. The tidal currents flowing around the islands interact with these complex shallow coastal regions and resuspend sediments and particulate matter in the water near the coast, allowing visual water movement observation. (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) Direct georeferenced images in the same order as regions I-III. (<b>g</b>) Projected and overlapped direct georeferenced images on the WGS84 coordinate map, with a UAV flight time of three study areas and ocean drifter trajectories.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Ocean drifters deployed in the observation area. (<b>b</b>) Structure of the drifter (body, float, drogue). (<b>c</b>) Iridium communication satellite 9602-LP global positioning system (GPS) module in the body of the drifter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Overview of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) data processing steps to analyze the sea surface waves and currents.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Seven decomposed Bidimensional Intrinsic Mode Functions (BIMFs) and a residual of Region I using Fast and Adaptive Multidimensional Empirical Mode Decomposition (FA-MEMD). (<b>b</b>) The marginal spectrum of Hilbert Spectral Analysis (HSA) results of each BIMF, arranged by frequency in the time and frequency domain. The Hilbert energy value was normalized in the range of 0–1 for an improved interpretation of peak location.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) Region I, Region of Interest (ROI) size with 1500 × 1500 pixels; (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) Region II, ROI size with 1000 × 1000 pixels; (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) Region III, ROI size with 500 × 1700 pixels. Three regions are separated into two different ocean dynamics: surface waves containing periodic components and surface currents showing the detailed structure of turbid water.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Fourier analysis results of surface wave signals for period and directionality. (<b>a</b>) BIMF1, (<b>b</b>) BIMF2, and (<b>c</b>) BIMF3 from Region I. The top panel: decomposed 300 m × 300 m wave component images with different wave features. The bottom panel: 2D wavenumber spectrum E(<span class="html-italic">K</span><sub>x</sub>, <span class="html-italic">K</span><sub>y</sub>). The wavenumbers, <span class="html-italic">K</span><sub>x</sub>, <span class="html-italic">K</span><sub>y</sub> are 2πn/dx in which n is the number of pixels and dx is the spatial scale of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Region I: (<b>a</b>) Estimated surface current location on the georeferenced image map with drifter trajectory. (<b>b</b>) Surface current vector map. (<b>c</b>) Surface current velocity map. (<b>d</b>) Surface current vorticity map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Region II: (<b>a</b>) Estimated surface current location on the georeferenced image map with drifter trajectory. (<b>b</b>) Surface current vector map. (<b>c</b>) Surface current velocity map. (<b>d</b>) Surface current vorticity map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Region III: (<b>a</b>) Estimated surface current location on the georeferenced image map with drifter trajectory. (<b>b</b>) Surface current vector map. (<b>c</b>) Surface current velocity map. (<b>d</b>) Surface current vorticity map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of surface current velocity magnitude from Optical Flow estimations and in situ drifters. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) U and V components, and (<b>c</b>) velocity magnitude in total three areas (Region I-III). Optical and drifter velocities are moving-averaged by 1 and 2 min, respectively. The black dashed and solid lines denote the slope of the regression and the 1:1 line, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Original image of Region I obtained from the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). (<b>b</b>) Filtered image by eliminating the decomposed surface wave signal. The top panel: input image of the Optical Flow (OF) algorithm; the bottom panel: optically estimated current field. The effect of surface wave in estimating current is shown by the messy vector field in the bottom panel of the original image, disturbed by the northeastward propagating surface wave signal.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 1098 KiB  
Article
Prediction of Drift Trajectory in the Ocean Using Double-Branch Adaptive Span Attention
by Chenghao Zhang, Jing Zhang, Jiafu Zhao and Tianchi Zhang
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(6), 1016; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12061016 - 18 Jun 2024
Viewed by 698
Abstract
The accurate prediction of drift trajectories holds paramount significance for disaster response and navigational safety. The future positions of underwater drifters in the ocean are closely related to their historical drift patterns. Additionally, leveraging the complex dependencies between drift trajectories and ocean currents [...] Read more.
The accurate prediction of drift trajectories holds paramount significance for disaster response and navigational safety. The future positions of underwater drifters in the ocean are closely related to their historical drift patterns. Additionally, leveraging the complex dependencies between drift trajectories and ocean currents can enhance the accuracy of predictions. Building upon this foundation, we propose a Transformer model based on double-branch adaptive span attention (DBASformer), aimed at capturing the multivariate time-series relationships within drift history data and predicting drift trajectories in future periods. DBASformer can predict drift trajectories more accurately. The proposed adaptive span attention mechanism exhibits enhanced flexibility in the computation of attention weights, and the double-branch attention structure can capture the cross-time and cross-dimension dependencies in the sequences. Finally, our method was evaluated using datasets containing buoy data with ocean current velocities and Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) data. The raw data underwent cleaning and alignment processes. Comparative results with five alternative methods demonstrate that DBASformer improves prediction accuracy. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ocean Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Frameworkof DBASformer.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Two attention patterns are depicted: white areas signify empty attention, light blue areas represent low attention, and dark blue indicates high attention from each token to itself.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Double-branch attention mechanism: yellow represents the drift trajectory, green and blue represent the variables that affect the drift.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Forms of temporal attention: (<b>a</b>) high span and (<b>b</b>) low span, dashed line represents the range of attention, yellow indicates the historical token, and orange represents the current position within the token.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Forms of dimensional attention: (<b>a</b>) high span and (<b>b</b>) low span, dashed line represents the range of attention, yellow indicates historical token in the same dimension as orange, green represents token from another dimension, red indicates token that is not included in the attention calculation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The results of the BiLSTM model predicting latitude and longitude for buoy trajectory: (<b>a</b>) illustrates the prediction of latitude over the period and (<b>b</b>) illustrates the prediction of longitude over the period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The results of the CNN-LSTM model predicting latitude and longitude for buoy trajectory: (<b>a</b>) illustrates the prediction of latitude over the period and (<b>b</b>) illustrates the prediction of longitude over the period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The results of the RGA model predicting latitude and longitude for buoy trajectory: (<b>a</b>) illustrates the prediction of latitude over the period and (<b>b</b>) illustrates the prediction of longitude over the period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The results of the TrAISformer model predicting latitude and longitude for buoy trajectory: (<b>a</b>) illustrates the prediction of latitude over the period and (<b>b</b>) illustrates the prediction of longitude over the period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The results of the TRFM-LS model predicting latitude and longitude for buoy trajectory: (<b>a</b>) illustrates the prediction of latitude over the period and (<b>b</b>) illustrates the prediction of longitude over the period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The results of the DBASformer model predicting latitude and longitude for buoy trajectory: (<b>a</b>) illustrates the prediction of latitude over the period and (<b>b</b>) illustrates the prediction of longitude over the period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The results of DBASformer model predicting latitude and longitude for AUV trajectory: (<b>a</b>) illustrates the prediction of latitude over the period and (<b>b</b>) illustrates the prediction of longitude over the period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>MSE of prediction on the buoy dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>MAE of prediction on the buoy dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>MSE with different input lengths on the buoy dataset.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 7017 KiB  
Article
Inter-Comparison of SST Products from iQuam, AMSR2/GCOM-W1, and MWRI/FY-3D
by Yili Zhao, Ping Liu and Wu Zhou
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(11), 2034; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16112034 - 6 Jun 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1048
Abstract
Evaluating sea surface temperature (SST) products is essential before their application in marine environmental monitoring and related studies. SSTs from the in situ SST Quality Monitor (iQuam) system, Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) aboard the Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water, and the [...] Read more.
Evaluating sea surface temperature (SST) products is essential before their application in marine environmental monitoring and related studies. SSTs from the in situ SST Quality Monitor (iQuam) system, Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) aboard the Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water, and the Microwave Radiation Imager (MWRI) aboard the Chinese Fengyun-3D satellite are intercompared utilizing extended triple collocation (ETC) and direct comparison methods. Additionally, error characteristic variations with respect to time, latitude, SST, sea surface wind speed, columnar water vapor, and columnar cloud liquid water are analyzed comprehensively. In contrast to the prevailing focus on SST validation accuracy, the random errors and the capability to detect SST variations are also evaluated in this study. The result of ETC analysis indicates that iQuam SST from ships exhibits the highest random error, above 0.83 °C, whereas tropical mooring SST displays the lowest random error, below 0.28 °C. SST measurements from drifters, tropical moorings, Argo floats, and high-resolution drifters, which possess random errors of less than 0.35 °C, are recommended for validating remotely sensed SST. The ability of iQuam, AMSR2, and MWRI to detect SST variations diminishes significantly in ocean areas between 0°N and 20°N latitude and latitudes greater than 50°N and 50°S. AMSR2 and iQuam demonstrate similar random errors and capabilities for detecting SST variations, whereas MWRI shows a high random error and weak capability. In comparison to iQuam SST, AMSR2 exhibits a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of about 0.51 °C with a bias of −0.05 °C, while MWRI shows an RMSE of about 1.26 °C with a bias of −0.14 °C. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Spatial distribution of triple collocations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Comparison between AMSR2 SST and iQuam SST in the daytime and nighttime. (<b>a</b>) Daytime. (<b>b</b>) Nighttime.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison between MWRI SST and iQuam SST in the daytime and nighttime. (<b>a</b>) Daytime. (<b>b</b>) Nighttime.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Spatial distribution of AMSR2 SST bias referring to iQuam SST. (<b>a</b>) Daytime. (<b>b</b>) Nighttime.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial distribution of SST difference between MWRI and iQuam. (<b>a</b>) Daytime. (<b>b</b>) Nighttime.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Temporal variation in error characteristics. (<b>a</b>) ESD. (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>SNR</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>SUb</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>c</b>) Bias. (<b>d</b>) RMSE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Latitudinal variation in error characteristics. (<b>a</b>) ESD. (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>SNR</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>SUb</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>c</b>) Bias. (<b>d</b>) RMSE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Variation in error characteristics along SST. (<b>a</b>) ESD. (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>SNR</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>SUb</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>c</b>) Bias. (<b>d</b>) RMSE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Variation in error characteristics along sea surface wind speed. (<b>a</b>) ESD. (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>SNR</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>SUb</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>c</b>) Bias. (<b>d</b>) RMSE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Variation in error characteristics along columnar water vapor. (<b>a</b>) ESD. (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>SNR</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>SUb</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>c</b>) Bias. (<b>d</b>) RMSE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Variation in error characteristics along columnar cloud liquid water (<b>a</b>) ESD. (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>SNR</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>SUb</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. (<b>c</b>) Bias. (<b>d</b>) RMSE.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 966 KiB  
Review
Annual Review of In Situ Observations of Tropical Cyclone–Ocean Interaction in the Western North Pacific during 2023
by Hailun He, Ruizhen Tian, Xinyan Lyu, Zheng Ling, Jia Sun and Anzhou Cao
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(11), 1990; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16111990 - 31 May 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 739
Abstract
We present a review of in situ observations regarding the interactions between tropical cyclones and the ocean in the western North Pacific for the year 2023. A total of at least 13 tropical cyclones occurred during this period. According to the Japan Meteorological [...] Read more.
We present a review of in situ observations regarding the interactions between tropical cyclones and the ocean in the western North Pacific for the year 2023. A total of at least 13 tropical cyclones occurred during this period. According to the Japan Meteorological Agency, Typhoon Mawar recorded the yearly minimum pressure at 900 hPar. On average, each tropical cyclone captured 7.4 surface drifters and 25.2 Argo floats when the search radius is 300 km. During Guchol, the maximum in situ Lagrangian current reached 1.23 m/s, with sustained wind speeds of the tropical cyclone up to 31.7 m/s and a relative position of 174 km. Additionally, several Argo floats were active during tropical cyclones, with maximum sea surface temperature cooling reaching 0.66 °C. This annual review provides a comprehensive summary of the current state of in situ observations regarding tropical cyclone–ocean interaction. These findings serve as valuable references for both scientific research and operational forecasting. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Best tracks of TCs in the western North Pacific during 2023. The best track data were provided by JMA. The first 13 TCs in this year were considered.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Surface drifters captured by TCs in the year 2023. Magenta solid lines represent the best tracks of TCs, while the blue solid lines depict the trajectories of surface drifters. <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denotes the number of surface drifters, and a search radius of 300 km is utilized. The best tracks of TCs are sourced from JMA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Argo floats captured by TCs in the year 2023. Magenta solid lines represent the best tracks of TCs, while the blue solid lines depict the trajectories of Argo floats. <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> denotes the number of Argo floats, and a search radius of 300 km is utilized. The best tracks of TCs are sourced from JMA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Argo observation of ocean response to typhoon Guchol. Time series of (<b>a</b>) SST and (<b>b</b>) SSS and profiling of (<b>c</b>) temperature and (<b>d</b>) salinity. Float ID: 5906387; distance from typhoon: 121 km. The variable <span class="html-italic">t</span> represents time, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>t</mi> <mn>0</mn> </msub> </semantics></math> is the typhoon’s arrival time (2023-06-06 21:00:00). In (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>), black solid lines are the mixed-layer depths.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 7771 KiB  
Article
Near-Surface Dispersion and Current Observations Using Dye, Drifters, and HF Radar in Coastal Waters
by Keunyong Kim, Hong Thi My Tran, Kyu-Min Song, Young Baek Son, Young-Gyu Park, Joo-Hyung Ryu, Geun-Ho Kwak and Jun Myoung Choi
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(11), 1985; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16111985 - 31 May 2024
Viewed by 793
Abstract
This study explores the near-surface dispersion mechanisms of contaminants in coastal waters, leveraging a comprehensive method that includes using dye and drifters as tracers, coupled with diverse observational platforms like drones, satellites, in situ sampling, and HF radar. The aim is to deepen [...] Read more.
This study explores the near-surface dispersion mechanisms of contaminants in coastal waters, leveraging a comprehensive method that includes using dye and drifters as tracers, coupled with diverse observational platforms like drones, satellites, in situ sampling, and HF radar. The aim is to deepen our understanding of surface currents’ impact on contaminant dispersion, thereby improving predictive models for managing environmental incidents such as pollutant releases. Rhodamine WT dye, chosen for its significant fluorescent properties and detectability, along with drifter data, allowed us to investigate the dynamics of near-surface physical phenomena such as the Ekman current, Stokes drift, and wind-driven currents. Our research emphasizes the importance of integrating scalar tracers and Lagrangian markers in experimental designs, revealing differential dispersion behaviors due to near-surface vertical shear caused by the Ekman current and Stokes drift. During slow-current conditions, the elongation direction of the dye patch aligned well with the direction of a depth-averaged Ekman spiral, or Ekman transport. Analytical calculations of vertical shear, based on the Ekman current and Stokes drift, closely matched those derived from tracer observations. Over a 7 h experiment, the vertical diffusivity near the surface was first observed at the early stages of scalar mixing, with a value of 1.9×104 m2/s, and the horizontal eddy diffusivity of the dye patch and drifters reached the order of 1 m2/s at a 1000 m length scale. Particle tracking models demonstrate that while HF radar currents can effectively predict the trajectories of tracers near the surface, incorporating near-surface currents, including the Ekman current, Stokes drift, and windage, is essential for a more accurate prediction of the fate of surface floats. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area. The domain of (<b>b</b>) indicates the area within a rectangle in (<b>a</b>). The gray-shaded area represents the coverage of HF radar in Yeosu Bay. The ‘x’ marks the initial dye release location. The red dot denotes the nearby buoy location where wind and wave data were collected. The black dots denote the locations of two HF radars.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Wind speed measured from R/V Research 1 and (<b>b</b>) corresponding wind stress. (<b>c</b>) Significant wave height as measured by the nearby buoy indicated in <a href="#remotesensing-16-01985-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>. The dye monitoring experiment was conducted during the period highlighted by two red lines. Variables <span class="html-italic">u</span> and <span class="html-italic">v</span> represent wind velocities in the east–west (EW) and north–south (NS) directions, respectively, while <span class="html-italic">U</span> denotes the magnitude of wind speed. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>τ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>τ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>y</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> indicate wind stresses in the EW and NS directions, with <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>τ</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> representing the overall magnitude of wind stress.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) Dye and drifter trajectories overlaid on the background of HF radar current (HFR). Comparison of Eulerian HFR and tidal velocities (modeled from the TMD MATLAB toolbox version 2.5) at a fixed location near the dye release point in the east–west direction (<b>e</b>) and north–south direction (<b>f</b>). Panels (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) compare the Eulerian velocities in (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) with Lagrangian observational velocities during the experiment duration, marked by two gray lines in (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>). Wind speeds in (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) are scaled down by a factor of 20.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Displacement of the center of the dye patch (‘○’), float (‘<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>×</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>’), and drifters (‘∙’). The square indicates the release location, and the three concurrent locations are connected by lines. Displacements in the east–west direction (<b>b</b>) and north–south direction (<b>c</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Temporal evolution of the dye patch distribution at different times, with size and direction of the ellipse calculated from the principal axis analysis. The ellipse comprises two axes: the length of the longer axis is 3<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>a</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and that of the shorter axis is 3<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>i</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. The angle, measured from the southward direction rotating clockwise, is presented in <a href="#remotesensing-16-01985-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. The actual size of all distributions can be estimated along the x and y axes, with insets providing magnified views of the distributions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Vertical dye concentration distributions at 10 min (<b>a</b>) and 4 h (<b>b</b>) after the release, as measured by a fluorometer installed on the SCAMP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Raw RGB images taken by a drone 2.3 h post-dye release (around 11:30 a.m.); (<b>b</b>) a magnified segment of (<b>a</b>), converted to grayscale to emphasize the wave propagation direction. The angle between the two vectors is approximately 45 degrees.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Estimations of near-surface currents driven by the Ekman current and Stokes drift by analytical calculations (<b>a</b>) and the corresponding vertical shear (<b>b</b>) in the direction of the transect oriented 45 degrees from the southward direction. ‘Total’ represents the sum of the Ekman and Stokes components. Two dots represent the estimations of mean vertical shear derived from the mean velocity difference between the float and drifters (S1) and between the drifters and dye (S2).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Shear estimation using two tracers (float and drifter). S1 and S2 represent the shear calculated from the velocity difference between the float and drifters (S1) and between the drifters and dye (S2). The subscripts ‘<span class="html-italic">y</span>’ and ‘<span class="html-italic">x</span> + <span class="html-italic">y</span>’ indicate the <span class="html-italic">y</span> direction (north–south or NS) component and the total sum of the NS and east–west (EW) components, respectively. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>U</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>w</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>d</mi> <mo> </mo> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> denotes the total wind speed, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>w</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>d</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> represents the NS component of the wind speed. The axis for wind speed is on the right side.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Second moments of distribution and (<b>b</b>) dispersion coefficient (<span class="html-italic">K</span>) over time for three tracers: a dye patch, a combination of float and drifters (‘f + d’), and drifters only (‘d’). The total variance <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <msup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </msup> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> of dye concentration distribution is calculated as <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <msup> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </msup> <mo>=</mo> <mn>2</mn> <msub> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>a</mi> </mrow> </msub> <msub> <mrow> <mi>σ</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>i</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> represents the relative dispersion of Lagrangian tracers. (<b>c</b>) Variation of the dispersion coefficient (<span class="html-italic">K</span>) with the horizontal length scale (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>l</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>3</mn> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">σ</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) of dye patch.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Estimated trajectories from the particle tracking model. HFR, EK, ST, and W indicate current components from HF radar, Ekman current, Stokes drift, and 1% of wind speed, respectively. The gray shaded area indicates the dye patch.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 10525 KiB  
Article
Ocean Satellite Data Fusion for High-Resolution Surface Current Maps
by Alisa Kugusheva, Hannah Bull, Evangelos Moschos, Artemis Ioannou, Briac Le Vu and Alexandre Stegner
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(7), 1182; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16071182 - 28 Mar 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1648
Abstract
Real-time reconstruction of ocean surface currents is a challenge due to the complex, non-linear dynamics of the ocean, the small number of in situ measurements, and the spatio-temporal heterogeneity of satellite altimetry observations. To address this challenge, we introduce HIRES-CURRENTS-Net, an operational real-time [...] Read more.
Real-time reconstruction of ocean surface currents is a challenge due to the complex, non-linear dynamics of the ocean, the small number of in situ measurements, and the spatio-temporal heterogeneity of satellite altimetry observations. To address this challenge, we introduce HIRES-CURRENTS-Net, an operational real-time convolutional neural network (CNN) model for daily ocean current reconstruction. This study focuses on the Mediterranean Sea, a region where operational models have great difficulty predicting surface currents. Notably, our model showcases higher accuracy compared to commonly used alternative methods. HIRES-CURRENTS-Net integrates high-resolution measurements from the infrared or visible spectrum—high resolution Sea Surface Temperature (SST) or chlorophyll (CHL) images—in addition to the low-resolution Sea Surface Height (SSH) maps derived from satellite altimeters. In the first stage, we apply a transfer learning method which uses a high-resolution numerical model to pre-train our CNN model on simulated SSH and SST data with synthetic clouds. The observation of System Simulation Experiments (OSSEs) offers us a sufficient training dataset with reference surface currents at very high resolution, and a model trained on this data can then be applied to real data. In the second stage, to enhance the real-time operational performance of our model over previous methods, we fine-tune the CNN model on real satellite data using a novel pseudo-labeling strategy. We validate HIRES-CURRENTS-Net on real data from drifters and demonstrate that our data-driven approach proves effective for real-time sea surface current reconstruction with potential operational applications such as ship routing. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Now-cast of surface velocity field estimated by (<b>a</b>) the Mercator numerical model, (<b>b</b>) the AVISO/DUACS interpolated satellite altimetry product, and (<b>c</b>) our CNN model HIRES-CURRENTS-Net. In order to qualitatively compare the accuracy of these different data, the surface velocity vectors (white arrows) are superimposed on the high-resolution SST observation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>We use an OSSE derived by (<b>a</b>) generating a high-resolution SSH field from a numerical model, (<b>b</b>) sampling the field via synthetic satellite tracks which simulate observation by altimeters and adding realistic noise, (<b>c</b>) inhomogeneous spatio-temporal interpolation between the sampled points to generate the OSSE field. In our experiment, the high-resolution horizontal grid size is 2 km and the low-resolution horizontal grid size is 15 km.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Map representing drifter observations during 2 years of collection in 2021–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Example of a set of input/output images during training and validation. The model takes as an input a set of four images: (<b>a</b>) SST (high resolution), (<b>b</b>) SSH (low resolution), and (<b>c</b>) velocity field (low resolution), and outputs a set of three images: (<b>d</b>) SSH (high resolution), and (<b>e</b>) velocity field (high resolution). The velocity field represents a vector of the U and V field components. The high-resolution images (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>e</b>) are retrieved from the numerical model reference run, while the low-resolution images (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) are retrieved from the OSSE altimetry reproduction. Inhomogeneous downsampling from high resolution to low resolution leads to local circulation often being misrepresented in the input velocities.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Schematic representation of the HIRES architecture. Our model follows a U-Net architecture, presented in detail in [<a href="#B28-remotesensing-16-01182" class="html-bibr">28</a>]. The encoder–decoder architecture learns the mapping of a multi-modal 4-image input (<b>a</b>) via a downsampling branch (<b>b</b>) and three upsampling branches (<b>c</b>) to provide a 3-image output (<b>d</b>). Skip connections are employed between the downsampling branch and each upsampling branch. The convolution operation uses a <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mn>3</mn> <mo>×</mo> <mn>3</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> kernel with a ReLu activation function and extracts features from input data. Downsampling reduces spatial dimensions to capture larger context, while upsampling increases them to recover finer details. Skip connections connect corresponding layers between the encoder and the decoder, aiding in the retrieval of high-resolution features and mitigating vanishing gradients.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Examples of applying synthetic clouds on the SST input images during training. In this study, we divide cloud coverage into four categories based on the percentage of the clouds in SST crop: (<b>a</b>) low (0–40%), (<b>b</b>) medium (40–60%), (<b>c</b>) high (60–80%), and (<b>d</b>) very high (80–100%).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The (<b>left panel</b>) provides an example of our evaluation metric for the Mercator numerical model along the trajectory of a drifter with ID 6102787 in the eastern Mediterranean basin from March to May 2022 (<b>right panel</b>). The metric computes the angle error between the velocity vector estimated the model and the smoothed drifter trajectory. We divide the errors between the model prediction and the ground truth current direction obtained from drifters into 4 categories: excellent (deep green, error <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>θ</mi> <mo>&lt;</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> 15°), correct (light green, 15°<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>&lt;</mo> <mi>θ</mi> <mo>&lt;</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> 45°), inaccurate (orange, 45°<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>&lt;</mo> <mi>θ</mi> <mo>&lt;</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> 90°), and wrong (red, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>θ</mi> <mo>&gt;</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> 90°).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Qualitative examples of the standard AVISO/DUACS method and our HIRES-CURRENTS-Net model on the real satellite data of one <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mn>256</mn> <mo>×</mo> <mn>256</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> crop. Background: SST, arrows represent the velocity field, and grey color represents land areas. This qualitative example shows that HIRES-CURRENTS-Net is able to predict small-scale structures visible on the SST signature which are missed due to interpolation of sparse altimetric tracks.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Qualitative examples of the standard AVISO/DUACS method and our HIRES-CURRENTS-Net model on crops around drifter observations, superimposed on SST images. The black dots track the drifter and the black arrow indicates the drifter direction at one moment of observation. Drifters are shown for two consecutive days for better visualization. (<b>a</b>) Date of SST image: 7 April 2022. Drifter ID: 6102707. Drifter date: 6 April 2022–7 April 2022. Average drifter magnitude: 0.48 m/s. Located at (38.59, 40.89) °N, (0.31, 2.61) °E. (<b>b</b>) Date of SST image: 4 August 2022. Drifter ID: 6102674. Drifter date: 3 August 2022–4 August /2022. Average drifter magnitude: 0.29 m/s. Located at (39.01, 41.31) °N, (5.98, 8.27) °E. (<b>c</b>) Date of SST image: 11 March 2022. Drifter ID: 6102796. Drifter date: 11 March 2022–12 March 2022. Average drifter magnitude: 0.39 m/s. Located at (36.20, 38.50) °N, (4.62, 6.92) °E.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9 Cont.
<p>Qualitative examples of the standard AVISO/DUACS method and our HIRES-CURRENTS-Net model on crops around drifter observations, superimposed on SST images. The black dots track the drifter and the black arrow indicates the drifter direction at one moment of observation. Drifters are shown for two consecutive days for better visualization. (<b>a</b>) Date of SST image: 7 April 2022. Drifter ID: 6102707. Drifter date: 6 April 2022–7 April 2022. Average drifter magnitude: 0.48 m/s. Located at (38.59, 40.89) °N, (0.31, 2.61) °E. (<b>b</b>) Date of SST image: 4 August 2022. Drifter ID: 6102674. Drifter date: 3 August 2022–4 August /2022. Average drifter magnitude: 0.29 m/s. Located at (39.01, 41.31) °N, (5.98, 8.27) °E. (<b>c</b>) Date of SST image: 11 March 2022. Drifter ID: 6102796. Drifter date: 11 March 2022–12 March 2022. Average drifter magnitude: 0.39 m/s. Located at (36.20, 38.50) °N, (4.62, 6.92) °E.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Qualitative examples of current magnitudes (<b>upper row</b>) and vorticity (<b>lower row</b>) of the standard AVISO/DUACS method and our HIRES-CURRENTS-Net model on the CROCO validation data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p><b>Left</b>: Results on drifters for our HIRES-CURRENTS-Net model and two standard methods, Mercator and AVISO/DUACS, on angle error at different thresholds (see <a href="#remotesensing-16-01182-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a>). <b>Right</b>: results on drifters for HIRES-CURRENTS-Net on areas with &lt;40% clouds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>According to the standard voyage plan, from Tangier to Tunis, the roll−on/roll−off cargo ship would have faced several counter-currents induced by coastal eddies, as predicted in real time by our model and as illustrated in panel (<b>a</b>). By applying an isochrone method to our predicted ocean currents, we identified a route which better optimises fuel and time. Panel (<b>b</b>) shows our short-term optimal routing which provides a handful of waypoints (black dots) that lead to an increase in the mean Speed Over Ground (SOG) of 0.6 knots measured by the ship’s automatic identification system (AIS). The impact of the surface currents can be computed by subtracting measurements of Speed Through Water (STW) from onboard instruments. The green (red) dots indicate an increase (decrease) in the SOG of more than 0.5 knots. Panel (<b>c</b>) shows the optimized route superimposed on the Sea Surface Temperature measured by satellite on 27 November 2023.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 5080 KiB  
Article
Joint Inversion of Sea Surface Wind and Current Velocity Based on Sentinel-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar Observations
by Jingbei Sun, Huimin Li, Wenming Lin and Yijun He
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(3), 450; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12030450 - 2 Mar 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1534
Abstract
Spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) has been proven to be a useful technique for observing the sea surface wind and current over the open ocean given its all-weather data-gathering capability and high spatial resolution. In addition to the commonly used radar return magnitude [...] Read more.
Spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) has been proven to be a useful technique for observing the sea surface wind and current over the open ocean given its all-weather data-gathering capability and high spatial resolution. In addition to the commonly used radar return magnitude quantified by normalized radar cross section (NRCS), the Doppler centroid anomaly (DCA) has added another dimension of information. In this study, we combine the NRCS and DCA for a joint inversion of wind and surface current information using a Bayesian method. SAR-estimated Doppler is corrected by a series of steps, including the removal of scalloping effect and land correction. The cost function of this inversion scheme is constructed based on NRCS, DCA, and a background model wind. The retrieved wind results show the quality of performance through comparison with the in situ buoy measurements, showing a mean bias and a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.33 m/s and 1.45 m/s for wind speed and 6.94° and 35.74° for wind direction, respectively. The correlation coefficients for wind speed and direction reach 0.931 and 0.661, respectively. Based on the obtained wind field, the line-of-sight velocity of the sea surface current is then derived by removing the wind contribution using the empirical model. The results show a consistent spatial pattern relative to the high-frequency radars, with the comparison relative to the drifter-measured current velocity exhibiting a mean bias of 0.02 m/s and RMSE of 0.32 m/s, demonstrating the reliability of the proposed inversion scheme. Such results will serve as a prototype for future spaceborne sensors to combine the radar return and Doppler information for the joint retrieval of wind vector and surface current velocity. This technique could be readily extended to the radar configuration of rotating beams for monitoring winds and current vectors. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing Techniques in Marine Environment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Spatial coverage of SAR images included in this study and the buoy locations used for wind inversion validation (marked by the red ‘×’ with buoy ID annotated).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flowchart of DCA correction and inversion of wind and current velocity as well as the validation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Map of an SAR image acquired over the Gulf of Maine on 10 August 2019 for (<b>a</b>) NRCS at VV polarization and (<b>b</b>) SAR-estimated Doppler centroid.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Map of (<b>a</b>) the predicted (geometric) Doppler centroid and (<b>b</b>) the obtained Doppler centroid anomaly after subtracting the predicted Doppler centroid and the suppression of outliers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Demonstration of de-scalloping of DCA. The solid curve in blue denotes the averaged DCA along the azimuth direction, and the dashed line in blue is the third-order polynomial fit. The black solid curve is the scalloping signal to be removed for each sub-swath. (<b>b</b>) The map of DCA after scalloping corrections.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Land coverage in the Gulf of Maine (red mask for land covered area); (<b>b</b>) radial variation of Doppler centroid anomaly on land; (<b>c</b>) land-corrected Doppler anomaly.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Illustration of contribution of each term in the cost function. (<b>a</b>) NRCS term; (<b>b</b>) a priori (model) term; (<b>c</b>) Doppler term; (<b>d</b>) NRCS and model; (<b>e</b>) NRCS and Doppler; (<b>f</b>) NRCS, Doppler, and model. ‘□’indicates the true wind and ‘×’ indicates the local minima for cost function.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison of retrieved winds and buoy-measured winds for (<b>a</b>) wind speed and (<b>b</b>) wind direction. The performance metrics are annotated in each plot. The metrics in red in subplot (<b>b</b>) correspond to the results for wind speed higher than 4 m/s. The empty dots correspond to the points of wind speed lower than 4m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of retrieved oceanic current with reference dataset. (<b>a</b>) SAR-derived radial current velocity on 26 September 2019 overlapped with the trajectory of drifters (solid line in red). (<b>b</b>) Sea surface current velocity vector observed by HF radar on 26 September 2019. (<b>c</b>) Pointwise comparison of drifter measured radial velocity versus SAR-derived current velocity with the comparison metrics annotated in the plot. Note that all the collocation pairs between SAR and drifters are included in panel (<b>c</b>) to generate the scatter plot.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 1633 KiB  
Article
Towards Estimating Probability of Fish–Turbine Encounter: Using Drifters Equipped with Acoustic Tags to Verify the Efficacy of an Array of Acoustic Receivers
by Brian G. Sanderson, Richard H. Karsten and Daniel J. Hasselman
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11(8), 1592; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11081592 - 14 Aug 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 993
Abstract
An area has been designated for demonstrating the utility of marine hydrokinetic turbines in Minas Passage, Bay of Fundy. Marine renewable energy may be useful for the transition from carbon-based energy sources, but there is concern for the safety of fish that might [...] Read more.
An area has been designated for demonstrating the utility of marine hydrokinetic turbines in Minas Passage, Bay of Fundy. Marine renewable energy may be useful for the transition from carbon-based energy sources, but there is concern for the safety of fish that might encounter turbines. Acoustic receivers that detect signals from acoustically tagged fish that pass through the tidal demonstration area and the detection efficiency of tag signals might be used to estimate the likelihood of fish encountering marine hydrokinetic turbines. The method requires that tagged fish passing through the development area will be reliably detected by a receiver array. The present research tests the reliability with which passing tags are detected by suspending tags beneath GPS-tracked drifters. Drifters carrying high residency Innovasea tags that transmitted every 2 s were usually detected by the receiver array even in fast currents during spring tides but pulse-position modulation tags were inadequate. Sometimes very few high residency tag signals were detected when fast tidal currents swept a drifter through the receiver array, so increasing the transmission interval degrades performance at the tidal energy development area. High residency tags suspended close to the sea surface were slightly less likely to be detected if they passed by during calm conditions. Previously measured detection efficiencies were found to slightly overestimate the chances of a high residency tag carried by a drifter being detected as it passed by a receiver. This works elucidates the effectiveness with which acoustically tagged fish are detected in fast, highly turbulent tidal currents and informs the application of detection efficiency measurements to calculate the probability that fish encounter a marine hydrokinetic turbine. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Interface between Offshore Renewable Energy and the Environment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Mooring layout in Minas Passage. (<b>a</b>) Plan view shows moorings 1 through 12 and the TED area (gray box). (<b>b</b>) Depth profile along the mooring line. Inset shows location of the moorings within Minas Passage, Bay of Fundy.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>STD tracks. Positions of moorings 9–12 are marked with blue dots. Black lines show flood tracks. Ebb tracks are magenta. Tracks were measured on (<b>a</b>) 13, 15, and 16 June 2022 (n = 37) and (<b>b</b>) 17 and 18 July 2022 (n = 25).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Nonlinear offset to synchronize receivers at stations 9 through 12 to the receiver at station 9.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Signals detected as a function of distance and range along STD tracks. (<b>a</b>) Many signals are detected at moderately high current speed. (<b>b</b>) Fewer signals are detected at very high current speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Average detection efficiencies are plotted as functions of <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mi>FV</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, with black circles and lines indicating <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>±</mo> <mi>SD</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Signals from the HR tag at mooring 9 are detected by (<b>a</b>) the HR2 at mooring 8, (<b>b</b>) the HR2 at mooring 10. For corresponding ranges, the red lines show detection efficiencies measured in 2022. The distribution of detection efficiencies calculated from 2 to minute intervals is shown using a logarithmic color scale. The distribution was normalized to a maximum value of 100 per <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ρ</mi> </semantics></math>-<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mi>FV</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> bin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The expected number of detected signals, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi>E</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, declines with increasing slant range of closest approach, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>r</mi> <mi>ca</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>. Only the 44 STD tracks with <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mi>ca</mi> </msub> <mo>&gt;</mo> <mn>3.5</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> ms<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mn>1</mn> </mrow> </msup> </semantics></math> are included.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Number of detected signals for STD passing events plotted as a function of the number expected.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Two LTD tracks. A quasi-steady track (black) frequently passes near the southern end of the line of moored receivers (blue). A highly variable track (orange) sometimes passes through the northern end of the receiver line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Dots indicate where LTD tracks crossed the mooring line, with flood crossings displaced to the left and ebb crossings displaced to the right. Blue dots indicate passing events that were detected by the array of HR2 receivers and orange dots indicate passing events that were not detected.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>For each crossing that is south of mooring 6, the signed speed of the drifter, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mi>ca</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, is compared with the value obtained from the FVCOM model. A best-fit linear regression is plotted (purple).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Relating the number of HR signals detected during am LTD passing event, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi>D</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, to the range at closest approach, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>r</mi> <mi>ca</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, for measurements grouped according to the speed at closest approach, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo>|</mo> </mrow> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mi>ca</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo>|</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Each HR tag transmitted every <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>τ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Percentage of tag-passing events that are detected by a moored HR2 receiver as a function of speed, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo>|</mo> </mrow> <msub> <mi>s</mi> <mi>ca</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo>|</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and range, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>r</mi> <mi>ca</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, at closest approach. Here, we consider LTD of the two deepest HR tags (19 m and 28 m). Each tag transmitted every <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>τ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> s.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 3826 KiB  
Technical Note
Asymmetric Drifter Trajectories in an Anticyclonic Mesoscale Eddy
by Pengfei Tuo, Zhiyuan Hu, Shengli Chen, Jianyu Hu and Peining Yu
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(15), 3806; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15153806 - 31 Jul 2023
Viewed by 1509
Abstract
The influences of sea surface wind on the oceanic mesoscale eddy are complex. By integrating our self-developed surface drifters with satellite observations, we examined the influence of sea surface wind on the distribution of water masses and biomass within the interior of an [...] Read more.
The influences of sea surface wind on the oceanic mesoscale eddy are complex. By integrating our self-developed surface drifters with satellite observations, we examined the influence of sea surface wind on the distribution of water masses and biomass within the interior of an anticyclonic eddy. Ten drifters were deployed in the northern South China Sea in the spring of 2021. Eventually, six were trapped in an anticyclonic mesoscale eddy for an extended period. Interestingly, the drifters’ trajectories were not symmetric around the eddy center, displaying a significant offset of the distance from the wind turns to the southerly wind. Particle tracking experiments demonstrated that this departure could mainly be attributed to wind-driven ageostrophic currents. This is due to the strength of wind-driven ageostrophic currents being more comparable to geostrophic currents when accompanied by a deflection between the directions of the wind-driven current and the eddy’s translation. The drifters’ derived data indicated that sub-mesoscale ageostrophic currents within the eddy contributed to this asymmetric trajectory, with Ekman and non-Ekman components playing a role. Furthermore, the evolution of ocean color data provided corroborating evidence of these dynamic processes, highlighting the importance of ageostrophic processes within mesoscale eddies. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Schematic diagram of the drifter structure. (<b>b</b>) Field deployment photo of the drifters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Topography in the northern SCS (units in m) and the looping trajectories from observations on the six drifters. (<b>a</b>) The water depth is shown by the shaded color, and the −200 m isobath is marked. The black line with red dots (with an interval of three days) denotes the trajectory of the eddy’s center. The other colored lines are the trajectories of six drifters trapped in the eddy. (<b>b</b>) Zoom in on the trajectory of drifter D512 with the starting and ending dates marked. (<b>c</b>) The same as (<b>b</b>) but for drifter D510.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) The daily mean sea surface wind vector over the northern SCS (15−22°N, 115−121°E) from March to June 2021. (<b>b</b>) The time series of the mean geostrophic (solid black line) and wind-induced Ekman (solid blue line) speed inside the eddy. (<b>c</b>) The average degree of the moving direction for the eddy (solid red line) and Ekman (solid blue line) inside the eddy, the degree of which increased anti-clockwise from the east. Note here that to exclude the signals of high frequency (&lt;2 days), a low-pass Lanczos filter was applied to the time series of Ekman speed and direction and the eddy’s moving direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Particle tracking experiments. One-hundred particles were released in the northern SCS around 116.1°E and 20.5°N and tracked from 28 March to 24 May 2021. (<b>a</b>) The geostrophic experiment: the particle is driven by daily mean geostrophic currents. (<b>b</b>) The non-geostrophic experiment: all the tracking simulations configure the same as the geostrophic experiment, except the velocity field is a linear combination of the geostrophic and Ekman currents. The blue lines represent particles captured by the eddy, and the red line represents the particle’s trajectory selected with reference to the trajectory of D514. Note that the day of 8 May is marked with a pink triangle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The normalized drifters’ observational relative position (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>) calibrated absolute velocity <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mo>→</mo> </mover> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>b</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>), geostrophic velocity <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mo>→</mo> </mover> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>g</mi> <mi>e</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>), and ageostrophic velocity <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mo>→</mo> </mover> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>g</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>) in the anticyclonic eddy. The top panels (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) show the drifter observation period before 8 May 2021, and the bottom panels (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) show the drifter observation period after 8 May 2021. The vectors and contours represent the direction and amplitude of the velocity, respectively. The eddy center is marked with black dots.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-15-03806-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>, but for the (<b>a</b>) geostrophic experiment and (<b>b</b>) non-geostrophic experiment, wherein we linearly combined the non-Ekman ageostrophic currents (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mover accent="true"> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mo>→</mo> </mover> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>n</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>k</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>) derived from the drifters into the eddy interior.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The daily trend of the Chl-a concentration in the eddy interior (Units <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">g</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>3</mn> </mrow> </msup> <mo>·</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">y</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 6913 KiB  
Concept Paper
The Smart Drifter Cluster: Monitoring Sea Currents and Marine Litter Transport Using Consumer IoT Technologies
by Silvia Merlino, Vincenzo Calabrò, Carlotta Giannelli, Lorenzo Marini, Marco Pagliai, Lorenzo Sacco and Marco Bianucci
Sensors 2023, 23(12), 5467; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23125467 - 9 Jun 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1833
Abstract
The study of marine Lagrangian transport holds significant importance from a scientific perspective as well as for practical applications such as environmental-pollution responses and prevention (e.g., oil spills, dispersion/accumulation of plastic debris, etc.). In this regard, this concept paper introduces the Smart Drifter [...] Read more.
The study of marine Lagrangian transport holds significant importance from a scientific perspective as well as for practical applications such as environmental-pollution responses and prevention (e.g., oil spills, dispersion/accumulation of plastic debris, etc.). In this regard, this concept paper introduces the Smart Drifter Cluster: an innovative approach that leverages modern “consumer” IoT technologies and notions. This approach enables the remote acquisition of information on Lagrangian transport and important ocean variables, similar to standard drifters. However, it offers potential benefits such as reduced hardware costs, minimal maintenance expenses, and significantly lower power consumption compared to systems relying on independent drifters with satellite communication. By combining low power consumption with an optimized, compact integrated marine photovoltaic system, the drifters achieve unlimited operational autonomy. With the introduction of these new characteristics, the Smart Drifter Cluster goes beyond its primary function of mesoscale monitoring of marine currents. It becomes readily applicable to numerous civil applications, including recovering individuals and materials at sea, addressing pollutant spills, and tracking the dispersion of marine litter. An additional advantage of this remote monitoring and sensing system is its open-source hardware and software architecture. This fosters a citizen-science approach, enabling citizens to replicate, utilize, and contribute to the improvement of the system. Thus, within certain constraints of procedures and protocols, citizens can actively contribute to the generation of valuable data in this critical field. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Smart drifter model. (<b>a</b>) Standard configuration. (<b>b</b>) Photo with two different possible configurations. (<b>c</b>) Other possible configurations by assembling the same brick units in different ways (from MDM TEAM s.r.l.—MARTA project).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>MARTA Smart Drifters prototypes: secondaries on the left and primaries on the right. Note the trusters below the body of the primary type. The final design will have an appropriate shape to minimize direct wind drag.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The blue rectangles are the tracker modules of the primary drifter that filter and estimate position and velocity. These values are passed to the blue square that represents the Model Predictive Controller (from MDM TEAM s.r.l.—MARTA project).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The red rhombus indicates the active drifter (primary) relative to the corresponding connected sub-cluster (the blue circles inside the large circle that includes the primary). Based on the previous position and drift data, the primary elaborates a strategy for the possible activation of the thrusters in order to follow the “assigned” sub-cluster. The estimated positions and drifts of the secondary units are used to forecast long-term motion and future cluster fragmentation. With such a forecasted scenario, the motorized drifters will schedule and communicate to each other its target sub-cluster to follow given a certain optimization policy. (from MDM TEAM s.r.l.—MARTA project).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The primary drifter is following the central position of two secondary drifters (orange circles), following a trajectory (red line) computed interpolating predictions of the centroids (circles on the trajectory).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Path following error–norm of error between the geodetic position of the vehicle and the desired geodetic position on the path.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Captured picture of a motorized drifter (on the right) following a single passive drifter (on the left) during the Tellaro sea trial.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>T and pH sensor measurements collected and communicated by a single secondary drifter during the Tellaro sea trial.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Example of transmitted data, represented on the dedicated GUI. A single primary drifter is following a single secondary drifter (ID 1) with temperature, pH and DO sensors mounted on it.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Primary Drifter power consumption during Tellaro (La Spezia-IT) sea trial. The upper plot shows the balance between the dissipated (by the thrusters) and adsorbed (from the PV panels) current. The constant zero value means that it is lower than the threshold of ± 0.2 A. The lower plot shows the corresponding Force and Torque values for the thrusters.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop