<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Robert J. Welk</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Tyler V. King</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Natasha Scavotto</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Rebecca Michelle Gorney</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Sabina R. Gifford</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Michael D.W. Stouder</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Elizabeth A. Nystrom</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Jennifer L. Graham</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Wilson Barg Salls</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2026</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Monitoring cyanobacteria and other nuisance phytoplankton in the Hudson River is of great interest given its societal and ecological importance. Satellite remote sensing provides a cost-effective method to monitor chlorophyll-&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;(chl-a), a common proxy for algal biomass; however, the dynamic nature of rivers complicates approaches traditionally applied to lakes and oceans. During 2021–2023, we collected discrete samples for laboratory measurement of chl-a and measured in situ chl-a fluorescence during a series of longitudinal boat surveys along a 220-km reach of the lower Hudson River. Surveys were timed to coincide with Sentinel-2 satellite overpasses. We first investigated relations between laboratory-measured chl-a concentration and field-measured chl-a fluorescence, observing a weak correlation (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;r&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 0.25) that improved substantially after splitting data by day (mean&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;r&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt; = 0.53). Separately, to estimate chl-a fluorescence using satellite data, we developed a series of random forest models leveraging the rich fluorescence dataset collected. We tested three model types: individual day models, leave-one-out models trained on all days except a holdout test day, and a single pooled model trained on all days. Generally, individual day models exhibited lowest error (mean of mean absolute error [MAE] = 0.16 relative fluorescence units [RFU]), followed by the single pooled model (MAE = 0.22 RFU). Daily holdout models showed highest error (mean MAE = 0.40 RFU); this approach was intended to represent model performance on a day unseen in the training set, providing a more conservative estimate of performance than the more traditional pooled approach. Findings from both analyses emphasize the importance of considering temporal variability when modeling riverine systems.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1007/s10661-025-14844-3</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Springer Nature</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>From sample to sonde to Sentinel-2: Insights from a multi-scale chlorophyll-a monitoring effort in the Hudson River, New York</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>