EDP Sciences logo
Submit your research paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 22 / No 1 (2026) J. Eur. Opt. Society-Rapid Publ., 22 1 (2026) 6 References
Open Access
Issue
J. Eur. Opt. Society-Rapid Publ.
Volume 22, Number 1, 2026
Article Number 6
Number of page(s) 14
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/jeos/2026001
Published online 11 February 2026
  1. Wölfl AC et al., Seafloor mapping – The challenge of a truly global ocean bathymetry, Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 283 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00283. [Google Scholar]
  2. Leifer I et al., State-of-the-art satellite and airborne marine oil spill remote sensing: Application to the BP deepwater horizon oil spill, Remote Sens. Environ. 124, 185–209 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.03.024. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sathyendranath S, et al., Ocean-colour products for climate-change studies: What are their ideal characteristics?, Remote Sens. Environ. 203, 125–138 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.04.017. [Google Scholar]
  4. Li Z et al., Exploring modern bathymetry: A comprehensive review of data acquisition devices, model accuracy, and interpolation techniques for enhanced underwater mapping, Front. Mar. Sci. 10, 1178845 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1178845. [Google Scholar]
  5. Matte G et al., Implementation of the split-beam function to Mills cross multibeam echo sounder for target strength measurements, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 81(7), 1424–1433 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsae032. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jamet C et al., Going beyond standard ocean color observations: Lidar and polarimetry, Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 251 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00251. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ashphaq M et al., Review of near-shore satellite derived bathymetry: Classification and account of five decades of coastal bathymetry research, J. Ocean Eng. Sci. 6(4), 340–359 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2021.02.006. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chowdhury E et al., Use of bathymetric and LiDAR data in generating digital elevation model over the Lower Athabasca River Watershed in Alberta, Canada, Water 9, 19 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/w9010019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen Y et al., Simulation and design of an underwater lidar system using non-coaxial optics and multiple detection channels, Remote Sens. 15, 3618 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15143618. [Google Scholar]
  10. Eren F et al., Bottom characterization by using airborne lidar bathymetry (ALB) waveform features obtained from bottom return residual analysis, Remote Sens. Environ. 206, 260–274 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.035. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hoge FE et al., Water depth measurement using an airborne pulsed neon laser system, Appl. Opt. 19(6), 871–883 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.19.000871. [Google Scholar]
  12. Irish JL et al., Airborne lidar bathymetry: The SHOALS system, Bot. Int. Navig. Assoc. 43–53 (2000). [Google Scholar]
  13. LaRocque PE et al., Design description and field testing of the SHOALS-1000T airborne bathymeter, in Proc. SPIE 5412, Laser Radar Technology and Applications IX (2004). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.564924. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mandlburger G et al., A decade of progress in topo-bathymetric laser scanning exemplified by the Pielach River dataset, ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. X-1/W1-2023, 1123–1130 (2023). https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-X-1-W1-2023-1123-2023. [Google Scholar]
  15. Steinbacher F et al., High resolution, topobathymetric LiDAR coastal zone characterization in Denmark, HYDRO 2016, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilson N et al., Mapping seafloor relative reflectance and assessing coral reef morphology with EAARL-B topobathymetric lidar waveforms, Estuaries Coasts 45, 923–937 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00652-9. [Google Scholar]
  17. Feygels VI et al., CZMIL (Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging Lidar): From first flights to first mission through system validation, in Proc. Ocean Sensing and Monitoring V, 8724 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2017935. [Google Scholar]
  18. Moore TS et al., Vertical distributions of blooming cyanobacteria populations in a freshwater lake from lidar observations, Remote Sens. Environ. 225, 347–367 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.02.025. [Google Scholar]
  19. Churnside JH et al., Airborne remote sensing of a biological hot spot in the southeastern Bering Sea, Remote Sens. 3(3), 621–637 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs3030621. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chen P et al., Vertical distribution of subsurface phytoplankton layer in South China Sea using airborne lidar, Remote Sens. Environ. 263, 112567 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112567. [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu H et al., Subsurface plankton layers observed from airborne lidar in Sanya Bay, South China Sea, Opt. Express 26, 29134–29147 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.029134. [Google Scholar]
  22. Schulien JA et al., Vertically-resolved phytoplankton carbon and net primary production from a high spectral resolution lidar, Opt. Express 25(12), 13577–13587 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.25.013577. [Google Scholar]
  23. Chen W et al., Review of airborne oceanic lidar remote sensing, Intell. Mar. Technol. Syst. 1(1), 10 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44295-023-00007-y. [Google Scholar]
  24. Churnside JH et al., Airborne lidar for fisheries applications, Opt. Eng. 40(3), 406–414 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.1348000. [Google Scholar]
  25. Roddewig MR et al., Dual-polarization airborne lidar for freshwater fisheries management and research, Opt. Eng. 56(3), 031221 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.56.3.031221. [Google Scholar]
  26. Scofeld TP et al., Applying Gaussian mixture models to detect fish from airborne lidar measurements, in Proc. IEEE Res. Appl. Photon. Def. Conf. (RAPID), Miramar Beach (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/RAPID51799.2021.9521457. [Google Scholar]
  27. Churnside JH et al., Surveying the distribution and abundance of flying fishes and other epipelagic in the northern Gulf of Mexico using airborne lidar, Bull. Mar. Sci. 93(2), 591–609 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1039. [Google Scholar]
  28. Churnside JH et al., Ocean backscatter profiling using high-spectral-resolution lidar and a perturbation retrieval, Remote Sens. 10(12), 2003 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10122003. [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu Q et al., Shipborne variable-FOV, dual-wavelength, polarized ocean lidar: design and measurements in the Western Pacific, Opt. Express 30, 8927 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.449554. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li K et al., A dual-wavelength ocean lidar for vertical profiling of oceanic backscatter and attenuation, Remote Sens. 12, 2844 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172844. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chen P et al., LiDAR remote sensing for vertical distribution of seawater optical properties and chlorophyll-a from the East China Sea to the South China Sea, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 60, 1–21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3174230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee JH et al., Oceanographic lidar profiles compared with estimates from in situ optical measurements, Appl. Opt. 52(4), 786–794 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.52.000786. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhang L et al., An experimental study on monitoring wave profiles with lidar, Ocean Eng. 285, 115436 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115436. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang D et al., An experimental study on measuring breaking-wave bubbles with lidar remote sensing, Remote Sens. 14(7), 12 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14071680. [Google Scholar]
  35. Churnside JH et al., Airborne lidar detection and characterization of internal waves in a shallow fjord, J. Appl. Remote Sens. 6, 063611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.6.063611. [Google Scholar]
  36. Dolin LS et al., Algorithms for determining the spectral-energy characteristics of a random field of internal waves from fluctuations of lidar echo signals, Appl. Opt. 59(10), C78–C86 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.381675. [Google Scholar]
  37. Maccarone A et al., Three-dimensional imaging of stationary and moving targets in turbid underwater environments using a single-photon detector array, Opt. Express 27(20), 28437–28456 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.27.028437. [Google Scholar]
  38. Maccarone A et al., Submerged single-photon lidar imaging sensor used for real-time 3D scene reconstruction in scattering underwater environments, Opt. Express 31(10), 19(2023). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.487129. [Google Scholar]
  39. Shangguan M et al., Compact underwater single-photon imaging lidar, Opt. Lett. 50(6), 1957–1960 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.557195. [Google Scholar]
  40. Yang E et al., SHOALS object detection, Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 24–36 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang D et al., Evaluation of a new lightweight UAV-borne topo-bathymetric lidar for shallow water bathymetry and object detection, Sensors 22(4), 1379 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/s22041379. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang Z et al., SOLS: An open-source spaceborne oceanic lidar simulator, Remote Sens. 14, 1849 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14081849. [Google Scholar]
  43. Churnside JH, Review of profiling oceanographic lidar, Opt. Eng. 53, 051405 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.53.5.051405. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhou Y et al., Validation of the analytical model of oceanic lidar returns: Comparisons with Monte Carlo simulations and experimental results, Remote Sens. 11, 1870 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11161870. [Google Scholar]
  45. Liao Y et al., GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo simulation for a single-photon underwater lidar, Remote Sens. 15, 5245 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15215245. [Google Scholar]
  46. Poole LR et al., Semianalytic Monte Carlo radiative transfer model for oceanographic lidar systems, Appl. Opt. 20, 3653–3663 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.20.003653. [Google Scholar]
  47. Liu Q et al., A semianalytic Monte Carlo simulator for spaceborne oceanic lidar: Framework and preliminary results, Remote Sens. 12, 2820 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172820. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stegmann PG et al., Study of the effects of phytoplankton morphology and vertical profile on lidar attenuated backscatter and depolarization ratio, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 225, 1–15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.12.009. [Google Scholar]
  49. He H et al., Validation of the polarized Monte Carlo model of shipborne oceanic lidar returns, Opt. Express 31, 43250 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.511445. [Google Scholar]
  50. Cui X et al., Influence of wind-roughed sea surface on detection performance of spaceborne oceanic lidar, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 297, 108481 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2022.108481. [Google Scholar]
  51. Chen P et al., OLE: A novel oceanic lidar emulator, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 59, 9730–9744 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2020.3035381. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chen P et al., Semi-analytic Monte Carlo model for oceanographic lidar systems: Lookup table method used for randomly choosing scattering angles, Appl. Sci. 9, 48 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/app9010048. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang CK et al., A Monte Carlo study of the seagrass-induced depth bias in bathymetric lidar, Opt. Express 19, 7230 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.007230. [Google Scholar]
  54. Li J et al., Range difference between shallow and deep channels of airborne bathymetry lidar with segmented field-of-view receivers, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 60, 1–16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3172351. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  55. Guo S et al., Monte Carlo simulation with experimental research about underwater transmission and imaging of laser, Appl. Sci. 12(18), 8959 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12188959. [Google Scholar]
  56. Huang Y et al., Semi-analytical Monte Carlo simulation of underwater target echoes from a small UAV-based oceanic lidar, Opt. Commun. 574, 131157(2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2024.131157. [Google Scholar]
  57. Morel A et al., Optical properties of the ‘clearest’ natural waters, Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 217–229 (2007). https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2007.52.1.0217. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  58. Morel A et al., Bio-optical properties of oceanic waters: A reappraisal, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 106, 7163–7180 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC000319. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bricaud A et al., Variations of light absorption by suspended particles with chlorophyll a concentration in oceanic (case 1) waters: Analysis and implications for bio-optical models, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 103, 31033–31044 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1029/98JC02712. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bricaud A, et al., Absorption by dissolved organic matter of the sea (yellow substance) in the UV and visible domains, Limnol. Oceanogr. 26, 43–53(1981). https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1981.26.1.0043. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  61. Pope RM et al., Absorption spectrum (380–700 nm) of pure water II: Integrating cavity measurements, Appl. Opt. 36, 8710 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.36.008710. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  62. Nelson NB et al., The global distribution and dynamics of chromophoric dissolved organic matter, Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 5, 447–476 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-120710-100751. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  63. Levy U et al., Mathematics of vectorial Gaussian beams, Adv. Opt. Photonics 11, 828 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1364/AOP.11.000828. [Google Scholar]
  64. Cox C, Munk W, Measurement of the roughness of the sea surface from photographs of the sun’s glitter, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44(11), 838–50 (1954). https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.44.000838. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  65. Leathers RA et al., Monte Carlo radiative transfer simulations for ocean optics: A practical guide, (2004). https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA426624. [Google Scholar]
  66. Petzold TJ, Volume scattering functions for selected ocean waters (Scripps Inst. Oceanogr., San Diego, CA, USA, 1972). https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0753474. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mobley CD et al., Phase function effects on oceanic light fields, Appl. Opt. 41, 1035 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.41.001035. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  68. Mobley CD et al., Comparison of numerical models for computing underwater light fields, Appl. Opt. 32, 7484 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.32.007484. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  69. Yin T et al., Simulation of satellite, airborne and terrestrial lidar with DART (II): ALS and TLS multi-pulse acquisitions, photon counting, and solar noise, Remote Sens. Environ. 184, 454–468 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.07.009. [Google Scholar]
  70. Liu Z et al., Simulations of the observation of clouds and aerosols with the Experimental Lidar in Space Equipment system, Appl. Opt. 39, 3120 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.39.003120. [Google Scholar]
  71. Pan Z et al., Performance assessment of high resolution airborne full waveform lidar for shallow river bathymetry, Remote Sens. 7, 5133–5159 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70505133. [Google Scholar]
  72. Tao B, et al., Precise detection of water surface through the analysis of a single green waveform from bathymetry lidar, Opt. Express 30, 40820 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.468404. [Google Scholar]
  73. Smart JH, World-wide Ocean Optics Database (WOOD) 1900–2011 (NCEI Accession 0092528), NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, Dataset (2012). https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/archive/accession/0092528. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sauzède R et al., A neural network-based method for merging ocean color and Argo data to extend surface bio-optical properties to depth: Retrieval of the particulate backscattering coefficient, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 121, 2552–2571 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011408. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.