Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Remote Sensing of Environment

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / r s e

Spectral assessment of new ASTER SWIR surface reflectance data products

for spectroscopic mapping of rocks and minerals
John C. Mars ⁎, Lawrence C. Rowan 1
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: ASTER reflectance spectra from Cuprite, Nevada, and Mountain Pass, California, were compared to spectra of
Received 2 December 2009 field samples and to ASTER-resampled AVIRIS reflectance data to determine spectral accuracy and
Received in revised form 23 March 2010 spectroscopic mapping potential of two new ASTER SWIR reflectance datasets: RefL1b and AST_07XT.
Accepted 11 April 2010
RefL1b is a new reflectance dataset produced for this study using ASTER Level 1B data, crosstalk correction,
radiance correction factors, and concurrently acquired level 2 MODIS water vapor data. The AST_07XT data
Keywords:
ASTER
product, available from EDC and ERSDAC, incorporates crosstalk correction and non-concurrently acquired
SWIR MODIS water vapor data for atmospheric correction. Spectral accuracy was determined using difference
Remote sensing values which were compiled from ASTER band 5/6 and 9/8 ratios of AST_07XT or RefL1b data subtracted
Cuprite from similar ratios calculated for field sample and AVIRIS reflectance data. In addition, Spectral Analyst, a
Mountain Pass statistical program that utilizes a Spectral Feature Fitting algorithm, was used to quantitatively assess
Calibration spectral accuracy of AST_07XT and RefL1b data.
Spectral Analyst matched more minerals correctly and had higher scores for the RefL1b data than for
AST_07XT data. The radiance correction factors used in the RefL1b data corrected a low band 5 reflectance
anomaly observed in the AST_07XT and AST_07 data but also produced anomalously high band 5 reflectance
in RefL1b spectra with strong band 5 absorption for minerals, such as alunite. Thus, the band 5 anomaly seen
in the RefL1b data cannot be corrected using additional gain adjustments. In addition, the use of concurrent
MODIS water vapor data in the atmospheric correction of the RefL1b data produced datasets that had lower
band 9 reflectance anomalies than the AST_07XT data. Although assessment of spectral data suggests that
RefL1b data are more consistent and spectrally more correct than AST_07XT data, the Spectral Analyst results
indicate that spectral discrimination between some minerals, such as alunite and kaolinite, are still not
possible unless additional spectral calibration using site specific spectral data are performed.
Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction
The short wave infrared (SWIR) wavelength region (1.0–2.5 µm) is
particularly useful for making compositional determinations remotely
by measuring spectral absorption features related to molecular
processes in carbonate, hydrate and hydroxyl-bearing sulfate, silicate
and other minerals (Fig. 1; Hunt, 1977; Hunt et al., 1971; Hunt &
Salisbury, 1970). The SWIR wavelength region is especially challeng-
ing, however, because the solar radiation level is significantly lower
than in the Visible–Near Infrared (VNIR) region and reasonably
narrow bandpasses, particularly in the 2.1- to 2.4-µm region, are
needed to separate diagnostic SWIR absorption features (Fig. 1). In
addition, atmospheric absorption, especially by water, is a significant
variable throughout the SWIR wavelength region (Sabins, 1987). The
Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission radiometer (ASTER) mea-
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jmars@usgs.gov (J.C. Mars).
1
Deceased. Died on 5-02-2010
sures reflected solar radiation in 3 bands between 0.52 and 0.86 µm
(VNIR); in 6 bands from 1.6 to 2.43 µm (SWIR); and emitted radiation
in 5 bands from 8.125 to 11.65 µm (TIR) with 15-, 30-, and 90-m
resolution, respectively (Fujisada, 1995). ASTER SWIR bandpasses
have sufficient resolution to define distinct spectral shapes for
carbonate, hydrate and hydroxyl-bearing sulfate, silicate and other
minerals that contain significant SWIR absorption features (Fig. 1).
ASTER VNIR and SWIR data are available from the EROS Data Center
(EDC; USA) and the Earth Remote Sensing Data Analysis Center
(ERSDAC; Japan) as uncorrected radiance (Level 1A), corrected
radiance (Level 1B), and surface reflectance (AST_07) data. In
principal, the SWIR segment of the AST_07 data should be useful for
spectral analysis and lithologic mapping, in so far as atmospheric
water absorption has been compensated resulting in image spectra
that should resemble in situ measured reflectance spectra (Fig. 1).
Previous studies using ASTER SWIR data that have been corrected
to spectral reflectance using spectral in situ measurements indicate
that the SWIR data have sufficient spectral and spatial resolution to
spectroscopically identify and map various carbonate, sulfate, and

0034-4257/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.008
2012 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025

radiance data, crosstalk correction (Iwasaki & Tonooka, 2005), the

Biggar et al. (2005) radiometric correction factors, and MODIS water
vapor data acquired during ASTER scene acquisition. Because the
RefL1b and AST_07XT reflectance datasets have crosstalk correction,
differences between these datasets should be caused by the addition
of the Biggar et al. (2005) radiometric correction factors and use of
concurrently acquired water vapor data in the atmospheric correction
of the RefL1b data. In addition, this report describes the method for
producing the RefL1b data.

2. Data and methods

2.1. AVIRIS spectral units, sample spectra and spectral analysis

ASTER data used in this study were acquired from calibration sites
at Cuprite, Nevada, on May 24, 2005, and Mountain Pass, California, on
June 18, 2005 (Fig. 2). These sites were used in this study due to their
lithologic, spectral diversity and previous spectroscopic studies using
AVIRIS and ASTER data (Figs. 1–4; Rowan et al., 2003; Rowan & Mars,
2003). AVIRIS is a hyperspectral imaging spectrometer with 224
Fig. 1. Pairs of SWIR sample spectra (black) and spectra resampled to ASTER bandpasses contiguously spaced 10-nm bands from 0.35 to 2.5 µm and 20-m
(red) from Cuprite, Nevada, and Mountain Pass, California. resolution (Vane et al., 1993).
To determine the spectral accuracy of the ASTER SWIR reflectance
data, averaged spectra of rocks and minerals mapped using AVIRIS
hydrous and hydroxyl silicate minerals (Fig. 1; Fujisada, 1995; Rowan data from previous studies (spectral units) were used for spectral
et al., 2003, 2006; Rowan & Mars, 2003). However, analysis of comparisons to average spectra of AST_07XT and RefL1b data of the
numerous AST_07 images made by comparing the ASTER image same field areas (Figs. 3 and 4; Rowan et al., 2003; Rowan & Mars,
spectra to in situ reflectance spectra and well calibrated airborne 2003). The spectral units from previous studies cover areas ranging in
visible/infrared imaging spectrometer (AVIRIS) spectra has shown size from 0.23 km2 (buddingtonite outcrops at Cuprite, Nevada) to
that ASTER band 9 reflectance is commonly too high, whereas the 74.38 km2 (dolomite outcrops at Mountain Pass, California). Due to
band 5 values are typically too low (Mars & Rowan, 2006; Rowan et their larger, identical sampling areas, average spectra from the
al., 2003; Rowan & Mars, 2003). In addition, the accuracy of AST_07 spectral units for AVIRIS, AST_07XT and RefL1b reflectance data
spectral reflectance is affected by optical ‘crosstalk’, in which stray better represent the true spectral characteristics of the surface at 30-
light from the ASTER band 4 detector is captured by adjacent band 5 m resolution than sample spectra which only cover a small part of an
and 9 detectors on the ASTER SWIR instrument during scene ASTER 30 m pixel.
acquisition (Iwasaki & Tonooka, 2005; Mars & Rowan, 2006). Such
deviations from correct spectral reflectance result in false absorption
features and distortion of diagnostic signatures which results in
spectroscopic misidentification of minerals. Thus, in areas where
there are no lithologic or spectral data that can be used to better
calibrate ASTER reflectance SWIR data, the spectral accuracy of
reflectance data is questionable for spectroscopic identification and
mapping of minerals.
To address anomalous SWIR data including the band 5 reflectance
anomaly, new radiometric correction factors have been developed
using ground measurements and vicarious calibration methods
(Biggar et al., 2005). In addition, band 9 anomalies appear to be
partially caused by incorrect water vapor values used in the
atmospheric removal algorithm. The band 9 anomaly caused by
inaccurate water vapor values can be corrected by using moderate
resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) water vapor data
acquired at the same time the ASTER data are acquired (Gao &
Kaufman, 1998). Unfortunately, EDC and ERSDAC currently do not
offer ASTER products that apply the new Biggar et al. (2005)
radiometric correction factors and/or use MODIS water data that are
consistently acquired at the time of ASTER acquisition. For the
crosstalk problem, however, a new crosstalk-corrected ASTER
reflectance product (AST_07XT) has been released which is available
‘on-demand’ from EDC and ERSDAC (Iwasaki & Tonooka, 2005).
This report evaluates two new ASTER SWIR reflectance datasets to
determine the extent to which they can be used to spectroscopically
identify and map minerals without the use of in situ measured spectral
data for spectral correction. The new datasets include: (1) AST_07XT
SWIR reflectance data available at EDC and ERSDAC and (2) ASTER
SWIR reflectance data (RefL1b) compiled in this study using Level 1B Fig. 2. Location map of Cuprite, Nevada, and Mountain Pass, California, study areas.
 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025 2013

Fig. 3. AVIRIS minerals map of Cuprite, Nevada. The background is an ASTER band 4 simulated AVIRIS image (modified from Rowan et al., 2003).

To compare AVIRIS spectral units to AST_07XT and RefL1b
reflectance data, the AVIRIS datasets for Mountain Pass and Cuprite
sites were georegistered to the AST_07XT and RefL1b datasets at 30-m
resolution using Delaunay triangulation warping and nearest neigh-
bor resampling (De Berg et al., 2008; ITT, 2008). The AVIRIS Cuprite
scene was co registered using 80 ground control points and has an
RMS error of 1.28 and the AVIRIS Mountain Pass scene was co
registered using 325 ground control points and has an RMS error of
4.04. The AVIRIS data were resampled to ASTER SWIR bandpasses
using an ASTER spectral response function to define the actual
bandpass shape as opposed to a Gaussian function (ITT, 2008). The
whole bandpass shape is integrated and then the bandpass is divided
by the bandpass area to produce an output bandpass. The AVIRIS
spectra are then convolved to this output bandpass to produce the
resampled spectrum. The AVIRIS radiance datasets were converted to
reflectance using atmospheric compensation software (ImSpec,
2004). The atmospheric compensation software uses radiative
transfer code to model and compensate for atmospheric effects
(Chandrasekhar, 1960).
In addition to averaged AVIRIS spectral units, field samples were
collected and in situ field spectral measurements (hereafter referred
to as “sample spectra”) were acquired using an Analytical Spectral
Devices (ASD) spectrometer from Cuprite, Nevada, and Mountain
Pass, California, for comparison to AST_07XT and RefL1b data (Figs. 5
and 6). The ASD field spectrometer measures bidirectional reflectance
from 0.35 to 2.50 µm with 1 nm spacing. The ASD sample spectra were
averaged into representative sample spectra for each site and
resampled to ASTER bandpasses for comparison to ASTER image
spectra. Sample and ASTER image spectra were selected on the basis
of diagnostic absorption features associated with specific minerals.
Spectra of minerals that did not contain significant SWIR absorption
features were also selected to check for anomalous absorption
2014 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025
Fig. 4. AVIRIS minerals map of Mountain Pass, California. The background is an ASTER band 4 simulated AVIRIS image (modified from Rowan & Mars, 2003).
features in the AST_07XT and RefL1b data. Although samples were
taken from areas that were extensively covered by the sampled
material, some spectral mixing from other materials is likely due to
the 30-m resolution of the ASTER SWIR pixel.
To quantify relative variations in spectral shape, ratios and the
difference values from ratio subtraction were compiled from sample
spectra and averaged spectra from AVIRIS, AST_07XT and RefL1b
spectral units (Appendix A; Table 1; Fig. 5). The 5/6 band ratio was
evaluated because those band positions define the 2.165- and 2.20-
µm Al–O–H absorption feature, and the 9/8 band ratio was evaluated
because the band positions define the 2.31- to 2.33-µm CO3 and Fe,
Mg–O–H absorption features (Hunt, 1977; Hunt et al., 1971; Hunt &
Salisbury, 1970). Band ratios for samples and averages of image
spectra from AVIRIS spectral units were subtracted from AST_07XT
and RefL1b data to produce difference ratios (Table 1; Fig. 5). A
percent difference value indicates that AST_07XT or RefL1b band 5 for
the 5/6 difference ratio needs to be reduced if the difference ratio is a
negative value or increased if the difference ratio is a positive value to
match the spectral shape of the corresponding AVIRIS or sample
spectra (Fig. 5). Similarly, a percent difference value indicates that
AST_07XT or RefL1b band 9 for the 9/8 difference ratio needs to be
reduced if the difference ratio is a negative value or increased if the
difference ratio is a positive value to match the spectral shape of the
corresponding AVIRIS or sample spectra.
Spectral Analyst, a spectral matching program, was used to
quantitatively compare averaged spectra of ASTER-resampled AVIRIS
spectral units to AST_07XT and RefL1b spectral units (Table 2; ITT,
2008). Spectral Analyst uses a Spectral Feature Fitting (SFF) algorithm
to score and rank each spectrum of a mineral or lithology based on a
spectral library (Clark et al., 1990; ITT, 2008). SFF compares and ranks
absorption features of continuum-removed reference and image
spectra using a least-squares algorithm (Clark et al., 1990). The SFF
RMS error results are rescaled in Spectral Analyst where higher scores
up to 1 indicate better matches of the input spectrum to the reference
spectrum and lower scores down to 0 indicate poorer matches (Clark
et al., 1990; ITT, 2008). In this study, for the Spectral Analyst analysis,
the averaged SWIR spectra of ASTER-resampled AVIRIS spectral units
from previous studies at the Cuprite and Mountain Pass sites were
 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025 2015

Table 1
(A) Difference values of ASTER band ratios 5/6 and 9/8 for samples subtracted from
AST_07XT and RefL1b ratios for Cuprite, Nevada. (B) Difference values of ASTER band
ratios 5/6 and 9/8 for ASTER-resampled AVIRIS spectral unit ratios subtracted from
AST_07XT and RefL1b ratios for Cuprite, Nevada. (C) Difference values of ASTER band
ratios 5/6 and 9/8 for samples subtracted from AST_07XT and RefL1b ratios for
Mountain Pass, California. (D) Difference values of ASTER band ratios 5/6 and 9/8 for
ASTER-resampled AVIRIS spectral unit ratios subtracted from AST_07XT and RefL1b
ratios for Mountain Pass, California. Sample numbers next to sample names in (A) and
(C) correspond to sample locations for Cuprite, Nevada, and Mountain Pass, California,
in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.

Diff. ratio Diff. ratio Diff. ratio Diff. ratio

5/6 5/6 9/8 9/8

AST_07XT REF1B AST_07XT REF1B

A. Cuprite samples
Alunite 22 − 2.3% − 9.327% − 12.1% − 9.519%
Buddingtonite 27 2.5% − 5.041% − 1.7% 1.520%
Calcite 4 3.1% − 4.913% − 1.1% 0.607%
Dickite 8 2.7% − 5.177% − 12.4% − 9.195%
Smectite 24 4.4% − 3.850% − 5.9% − 4.842%
Kaolinite 10 4.0% − 3.154% − 9.8% − 4.480%
Fig. 5. ASTER 5/6 ratio differences from the averaged spectrum for the spectral unit Opal 15 24.1% 14.7% − 3.7% − 0.1%
muscovite from Cuprite, Nevada. (A) ASTER band 5/6 ratios are compiled from band 5 Playa 8.3% 1.045% − 8.8% − 4.157%
and 6 reflectance values from averaged spectra of spectral units shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Unaltered tuff 28 6.0% 0.594% − 0.4% 1.463%
(B) The AST_07XT and RefL1b ratios are each subtracted from the AVIRIS ratio Average 5.9% − 1.7% − 6.2% − 3.2%
producing the “ratio difference” which is shown in percent. (C) If the difference ratio is
positive then band 5 needs to be increased by that difference ratio percent to match the B. Cuprite ASTER-resampled AVIRIS spectra
AVIRIS band 5 and 6 positions on the spectral plot. (C) If the difference ratio is negative Alunite − 1.2% − 8.987% − 12.0% − 9.140%
then band 5 needs to be decreased by that difference ratio percent to match the AVIRIS Buddingtonite 2.0% − 5.652% − 7.0% − 3.636%
band 5 and 6 positions on the spectral plot. Calcite 3.1% − 5.052% − 6.8% − 4.389%
Dickite 0.2% − 7.672% − 9.5% − 7.840%
Hydro-illite 3.6% − 4.640% − 10.3% − 8.192%
used as the reference spectra, and the input spectra were the averaged Kaolinite 1.1% − 6.830% − 10.5% − 7.449%
SWIR spectra of the corresponding RefL1b and AST_07XT spectral Musc chlortite 6.2% − 2.141% − 8.4% − 6.366%
units (Rowan et al., 2003; Rowan & Mars, 2003). Muscovite 4.6% − 3.820% − 10.5% − 8.763%
Opal 5.3% − 2.699% − 7.9% − 4.687%
Playa 6.8% − 1.100% − 7.7% − 3.245%
Unaltered tuff 3.1% − 4.876% − 7.8% − 4.272%
Average 3.2% − 4.9% − 9.0% − 6.2%

C. Mountain Pass sample spectra

Al-muscovite 1 25.8% 17.531% − 17.8% − 10.707%
Dolomite 14 8.0% − 0.094% − 16.6% − 2.588%
Epidote chlorite skarn 3 7.8% − 0.684% − 12.7% − 1.963%
Chrysotile 21B 8.4% − 0.645% − 9.0% − 0.241%
Fe-muscovite 2 22.4% 13.538% − 19.1% − 7.062%
Diorite 15 16.9% 7.070% − 20.4% − 7.455%
LT brown slate 09 16.6% 7.721% − 16.8% − 5.235%
Musc biot 10 8.0% 1.280% − 16.4% − 5.884%
Average 13.1% 4.6% − 15.7% − 4.9%

D. Mountain Pass ASTER-resampled AVIRIS spectra

Al-muscovite 4.8% − 3.256% − 17.6% − 6.793%
Dolomite 2.3% − 5.4% − 17.4% − 6.5%
Epidote 3.3% − 4.601% − 17.1% − 6.057%
Fe Mg–OH Al–OH 2.9% − 4.988% − 17.5% − 6.800%
Fe-muscovite 5.0% − 3.181% − 19.0% − 8.197%
Limestone 2.2% − 5.410% − 16.8% − 5.914%
Average 3.4% − 4.5% − 17.6% − 6.7%

2.2. AST_07XT SWIR surface reflectance

Fig. 6. Flow chart of procedures and data used for generation of AST_07XT and RefL1b
reflectance data. Text in red indicates data used in the generation of RefL1b data not
used in the production of AST_07XT data.
AST_07XT data consist of ASTER VNIR and SWIR bands that have
been converted from radiance to surface reflectance (Fig. 6a).
AST_07XT data are the same as AST_07 surface reflectance data,
except that the crosstalk correction algorithm has been applied to the
AST_07XT data (Iwasaki & Tonooka, 2005). The AST_07XT products
used in this study were downloaded from the EROS Data Center (EDC).
Level 1B VNIR and SWIR radiance data are processed to the AST_07XT
surface reflectance product at EDC and ERSDAC by applying a method
that incorporates corrections for atmospheric absorption and scatter-
ing (Thome et al., 1999). The method uses Gauss–Seidel iteration
radiative transfer code that compile atmospheric compensation
2016 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025

Table 2
Spectral Analyst results for (A) AST_07XT and (B) RefL1b reflectance average image spectra from Cuprite, Nevada, and Spectral Analyst results for (C) AST_07XT and (D) RefL1b
reflectance average image spectra from Mountain Pass, California. Each image spectrum was derived from an average spectrum of an area defined by AVIRIS mineral maps (Figs. 3
and 4). AVIRIS (resampled to ASTER SWIR bandpasses) average image SWIR (ASTER bands 4 thru 9) spectra of each spectral unit were used as the reference library spectra in Spectral
Analyst. The AST_07XT and RefL1b reflectance average image spectra were mapped for spectral similarity to averaged spectra of AVIRIS spectral units using SFF. Spectral Analyst
rescales the SFF RMS scores from 0 (no match) to 1 (perfect match). The table includes Spectral Analyst scores, rank, and best match if the minerals or lithologies did not match
correctly.

AST07XT Rank Best match RefL1b Rank Best match

SSF score SSF score

A. Cuprite B. Cuprite
Alunite 0.850 4 Dickite — 0.911 Alunite 0.818 4 Dickite — 0.906
Buddingtonite 0.911 2 Dickite — 0.911 Buddingtonite 0.858 3 Dickite — 0.892
Calcite 0.731 1 Calcite 0.788 1
Dickite 0.832 1 Dickite 0.733 1
Hydro-illite–smectite 0.737 5 Dickite — 0.823 Hydro-illite–smectite 0.817 2 Muscovite 0.818
Kaolinite 0.849 2 Dickite — 0.906 Kaolinite 0.819 3 Dickite — 0.866
Muscovite and chlorite 0.676 7 Dickite — 0.789 Muscovite and chlorite 0.87 2 Muscovite — 0.881
Muscovite 0.702 3 Dickite — 0.735 Muscovite 0.854 1
Opal 0.499 8 Dickite — 0.790 Opal 0.758 2 Hydro-illite–smectite — 0.789
Playa 0.609 10 Dickite — 0.885 Playa 0.909 3 Opal — 0.926
Unaltered tuff 0.467 11 Dickite — 0.799 Unaltered tuff 0.694 11 Muscovite — 0.854
Average score 0.715 Average score 0.811
C. Mountain Pass D. Mountain Pass
Al-muscovite 0.456 2 Fe-muscovite — 0.473 Al-muscovite 0.902 1
Dolomite 0.434 2 Limestone — 0.453 Dolomite 0.801 1
Epidote 0.577 3 Limestone — 0.618 Epidote 0.777 1
Fe,MG–O–H + Al–O–H 0.396 5 Limestone — 0.509 Fe,MG–O–H + Al–O–H 0.707 5 Epidote — 0.788
Fe-muscovite 0.498 1 Fe-muscovite 0.842 1
Limestone 0.546 1 Limestone 0.861 1
Average score 0.485 Average score 0.815

calculations stored in a look-up table (Herman & Browning, 1965;
Thome et al., 1999).
Water vapor is the primary atmospheric absorber, and affects
ASTER bands 8 and 9 due to an atmospheric water band located at
2.74 µm (Sabins, 1987). For AST_07XT data, water vapor is estimated
from external regional climatological data or from global, 6-h averaged
water vapor maps (1 degree spatial resolution) compiled from MODIS
data. Thus, the atmospheric water vapor values used to compile
AST_07XT data are typically not recorded at the same time as ASTER
scene acquisition. Consequently, the accuracy of estimated atmo-
spheric absorption is variable and possibly results in errors in the
ASTER band 9 and band 8 surface reflectance data contained in many
AST_07XT products.
MODIS instrument flies on board the Terra satellite with the ASTER
instrument and obtains data concurrently with ASTER. MOD5_L2 data
consist of 1 km pixel resolution column water vapor values (Gao &
Kaufman, 1998). MODIS MOD_05 water vapor data were used to
derive an average water vapor value for each ASTER scene. Thus, a
concurrent water vapor value which consists of averaged 1 km2-
spaced water vapor data over the ASTER scene area is used in the
atmospheric compensation software for each ASTER scene. The RefL1b
data differs from the AST_07XT data because additional radiometric
correction factors and time synchronous MODIS water vapor data
have been applied to calibrate the RefL1b data (Fig. 6).
3. Geographic and geologic settings

2.3. Production of RefL1b data 3.1. Cuprite, Nevada

RefL1b reflectance data were compiled for this study from Level 1B
radiance data. Level 1B radiance data are rendered from ASTER Level
1A instrument data to a useful registered Level 1B radiance image by
applying radiometric calibration coefficients, geometric correction
coefficients, as well as SWIR parallax correction information (Fig. 6;
Tsu et al., 1996). The radiance at the sensor Level 1B data contain all 14
ASTER bands (3 VNIR, VNIR, 6 SWIR, and 5 TIR bands) and 1
stereoscopic band. The ASTER Level 1B data were crosstalk-corrected
using the Iwasaki and Tonooka (2005) algorithm, converted from byte
to radiance by applying radiometric conversion factors recorded in the
Level 1B metadata, and radiometrically adjusted by applying the
Biggar et al. (2005) radiometric correction factors (Fig. 6).
The RefL1b reflectance data are compiled using the crosstalk- and
radiometrically- corrected Level 1B data, a concurrent MODIS water
vapor value, and an atmospheric correction program (Fig. 6; ImSpec,
2004). The atmospheric correction program uses the same radiative
transfer code used to compensate for atmospheric effects in the
AVIRIS radiance data (Chandrasekhar, 1960; ImSpec, 2004). The
MODIS water vapor value was obtained from MOD5_L2 MODIS water
vapor product, downloaded from the Goddard Space Flight Center
using the Level 1 and Atmosphere Archive and Distribution System
(LAADS; http://ladsweb.nascom.nasa.gov/data/search.html). The
The Cuprite study area is located approximately 15 km south of
Goldfield, Nevada, in the southwestern part of the Great Basin (Fig. 2).
U.S. Highway 95 bisects the area (Figs. 3 and 7). Circular hills in the
eastern part of the study area and a north trending ridge in the
western part dominate the topographic relief (Fig. 3). Elevations
range from 1420 m to 1700 m above sea level. Field observations of
the study area show that there is sparse vegetation cover (b15%) that
includes sheep grass, juniper, small cactus, and sagebrush.
Cambrian sedimentary rocks cover most of the western part of the
study area (Fig. 9, Ashley & Abrams, 1980; Swayze, 1997). The oldest
Cambrian unit consists of greenish phyllitic siltstone overlain by
limestone, which is capped by thin-bedded limestone and chert. The
phyllitic siltstone contains abundant muscovite, which exhibits an Al–
OH 2.2-µm absorption feature (Figs. 1, 3, and 9). The limestone
typically exhibits a calcite (CO3) 2.33-µm spectral absorption feature.
Tertiary conglomerate and sandstone overlain by rhyolite ash-flow
tuffs cover the central and eastern parts of the study area (Fig. 9,
Ashley & Abrams, 1980; Swayze, 1997). A quartz latitic felsite dike
cuts the tuffs in the central part of the study area. The tuffs contain
hydrothermally-altered argillized, silicified and opalized rocks
(Figs. 1, and 3). Argillic-altered rocks primarily consist of alunite,
dickite, and kaolinite which exhibit doublet absorption features at
 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025
Fig. 7. ASTER false-color-composite image (red = band 6, green = band 3, blue = band
1) of the Cuprite, Nevada, study area showing sample locations.
2.17 and 2.2 µm (Figs. 1, and 3). Silicified and opalized rocks have a
broad absorption feature centered at 2.26 µm (Figs. 1 and 3).
3.2. Mountain Pass, California
The Mountain Pass study area is located near the southern
California–Nevada border and is bisected by U.S. Highway I-15
(Figs. 2, 4, and 8). The Clark Mountains, Mescal Range and Ivanpah
Range cover the northern, central, and southern parts of the study
area, respectively (Fig. 8). Large alluvial fans flank the mountain
ranges along the eastern, western and southern parts of the study
area. Elevations range from 2350 m to 1500 m above sea level (Fig. 8).
Field observations indicate that vegetation covers approximately 20
to 35% of the Mountain Pass study area and includes sagebrush,
cactus, grasses, and Joshua trees.
The northeastern part of the study area contains Proterozoic gneiss
with minor amounts of syenite, shonkinite, and carbonatite (Fig. 10;
Theodore et al., 1991). In the northern and central parts of the study
area the Proterozoic rocks are overlain by Paleozoic quartzose
sandstones and siltstones and carbonate rocks intruded by Jurassic
granodiorite and diorite rocks (Fig. 10; Theodore et al., 1991). The
Paleozoic sandstones, siltstones and carbonate rocks and extensive
Jurassic granodiorite and diorite intrusive rocks cover the southern
part of the study area (Fig. 10). In the east-central part of the study
area Tertiary intermediate composition volcanic rocks overlie quartz-
ose sandstones and gneiss (Fig. 10). Field investigations indicate that
skarns are located throughout the study area at Paleozoic carbonate
and Jurassic intrusive rock contacts.
Rocks in the Mountain Pass area contain a variety of SWIR spectral
absorption features. The skarns contain abundant epidote, garnet,
chlorite, and calcite which typically exhibit 2.31–2.33-µm absorption
features (Figs. 1 and 4). The Paleozoic dolomite and limestone also
2017
Fig. 8. ASTER false-color-composite image (red = band 6, green = band 3, blue = band
1) of the Mountain Pass, California, study area showing sample locations.
exhibit 2.31–2.33-µm absorption features and the Paleozoic siltstone
typically shows a 2.20-µm absorption feature (Figs. 1 and 4). A breccia
pipe located at the Coliseum Mine and a porphyry intrusive at the
Morning Star Mine, contain abundant sericite that exhibits intense
2.2-µm absorption features and muscovite and biotite-rich gneiss
exhibit 2.2- and weak 2.35- and 2.31-µm absorption features (Figs. 1
and 4; Theodore et al., 1991).
4. Spectral comparisons of AST_07xt data, RefL1b data, AVIRIS
data, sample data
4.1. Cuprite, Nevada
4.1.1. AST_07xt data
4.1.1.1. Band 5/6 differences. The 5/6 ratio difference values for 8 of the
samples (excluding opal) range from − 2.3% to 8.3%, and the
difference values for the AST_07XT and AVIRIS spectral units span
−1.2% to 6.8% (Table 1A and B, respectively). The smallest 5/6 ratio
differences are for spectra representing minerals that exhibit band 5
absorption features, including alunite, dickite, buddingtonite, and
kaolinite (Table 1A and B; Figs. 11 and 12), and the highest difference
values are for lithologic categories that do not have a band 5
absorption feature such as the playa, and muscovite–chlorite
(Table 1A and B; Figs. 11 and 12). Thus, the ratio differences and
spectral shape comparisons illustrate that AST_07XT spectra of
minerals with band 5 spectral absorption features have spectral
shapes similar to sample and AVIRIS spectral unit spectra (Table 1A
and B; Figs. 11 and 12). In addition, the ratio differences and spectral
shape comparisons illustrate that AST_07XT spectra of minerals, rocks
2018 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025
and sediments that lack band 5 spectral absorption features such as
the playa, muscovite, and unaltered tuff exhibit low band 5 reflectance
relative to band 6 (Table 1A and B; Figs. 11 and 12). The comparisons
of AST_07XT spectra to sample and averaged spectra of AVIRIS
spectral units indicate a band 5 anomaly that cannot be corrected
using a simple gain correction (Table 1A and B; Figs. 9 and 10).
Spectral Analyst incorrectly matched the AST_07XT spectral units
unaltered tuff, playa, opal, muscovite, illite, kaolinite, buddingtonite, and
alunite to the AVIRIS spectral unit dickite (Table 2A; Figs. 11 and 12).
Thus, due to the AST_07XT band 5 anomaly, materials that do not have
an intense band 5 absorption feature, such as the playa, opal, illite, and
smectite, instead have apparent spectral shapes similar to advanced
argillic alteration minerals, such as alunite, dickite, and kaolinite.
Fig. 9. Generalized geologic map of the Cuprite, Nevada, area (from Rowan et al., 2003).
Qal = sand, gravel, and boulders; Qp = playa deposits; Tb2 = olivine basalt; Tsf =
sodic ash-flow tuff; Tb1 = porphyritic olivine basalt; Ts = crystal-rich rhyolite and
latite tuff, conglomerate, and sandstone; Tf = quartz latitic felsite; -Ce = limestone and
chert; -Cms = limestone and lower limey siltstone; -Ch = phyllitic siltstone and minor
sandy limestone.
Fig. 10. Generalized geologic map of the Mountain Pass, California, area (from Rowan &
Mars, 2003). Alluvial, Colluvial Deposits = white; Quartzose Rocks = red; Limestone =
yellow; Dolomite = dark blue; Volcanic Rocks = orange; Granitoids and Gneisses =
brown; Granite, Syenite, Shonkinite, Carbonatite = purple; Granite, Granodiorite = green.
4.1.1.2. Band 9/8 differences. The AST_07XT 9/8 ratio differences for the
sample spectra range from −0.4% to −12.4% with an average of −6.2%
(Table 1A). The AST_07XT and AVIRIS spectral units 9/8 ratio difference
values range from −7.0% to −12.0% with an average of −9.0%
(Table 1B). Thus, the AST_07XT spectra of the Cuprite, Nevada area
illustrate that band 9 reflectance is high with respect to band 8 when
compared to averaged spectra of the AVIRIS spectral units and sample
spectra (Figs. 11 and 12; Table 1A and B). Spectral Analyst correctly
matched the AST_07XT calcite spectral unit (Table 2A). The AST_07XT
band 9 anomaly was not high enough to cause misidentification of other
minerals with the AVIRIS calcite spectral unit (Table 2A).
4.1.2. RefL1b
4.1.2.1. Band 5/6 differences. The 5/6 ratio difference values for the
samples, except for opal, range from −9.3% to 1.045%, and the difference
values for the AVIRIS-resampled data ranges from −1.1% to −8.99%
(Table 1A and B). RefL1b spectra that do not have intense band 5 spectral
absorption features, such as the playa, unaltered tuff, muscovite, calcite
and kaolinite, exhibit the smallest RefL1b ratio value differences (−5%
to 1%) and exhibit similar spectral shapes to AVIRIS spectral unit and
sample spectra (Table 1A and B; Figs. 11 and 12). RefL1b spectra of
minerals that have band 5 absorption features show the largest percent
difference values, such as alunite, buddingtonite, and dickite, which
illustrates anomalously high band 5 reflectance relative to band 6 when
compared to sample and AVIRIS spectral unit spectra (Figs. 11 and 12).
 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025
Fig. 11. AST_07XT and RefL1b SWIR image spectra, and sample SWIR spectra (resampled to ASTER bandpasses) taken from the same location in the Cuprite, Nevada, area. The dotted
line is situated at ASTER band 5 (2.165 µm).
Opal which has a broad, weak feature at 2.27 µm, and unaltered tuff
which is featureless, exhibits an anomalous 2.2-µm absorption feature
in their RefL1b spectra when compared to spectra from AVIRIS spectral
units and samples (Figs. 11 and 12).
Using the averaged spectra of RefL1b and AVIRIS spectral units,
Spectral Analyst matched unaltered tuff to muscovite; playa to opal
and kaolinite; and buddingtonite and alunite to dickite (Table 2B).
Muscovite, and dickite were correctly matched (Table 2B). Although
Spectral Analyst correctly matched dickite, examination of spectral
shapes and Spectral Analyst results suggest that the high band 5
anomaly for RefL1b data is severe enough to cause misidentification of
argillic alteration minerals, such as alunite, kaolinite, and dickite
(Figs. 11 and 12; Table 2B). The anomalous, weak 2.2-µm absorption
feature in RefL1b data resulted in the misidentification of opal and
unaltered tuff as muscovite, which is caused by the anomalously high
band 5 reflectance and anomalously, slightly low band 6 reflectance
(Figs. 11 and 12; Table 2B).
4.1.2.2. Band 9/8 differences. The Cuprite RefL1b 9/8 ratio difference
averages were −3.2% and −6.2% for samples and AVIRIS spectral
units, respectively (Table 1A and B; Figs. 11 and 12). Ratio difference
data and visual spectral comparisons between RefL1b, AVIRIS spectral
2019
unit, and sample spectra illustrate that band 9 reflectance is
anomalously high with respect to band 8 (Table 1A and B; Figs. 11
and 12). The calcite AVIRIS spectral unit spectrum was the best match
to the RefL1b spectral unit calcite spectrum in Spectral Analyst. The
RefL1b band 9 anomaly was not high enough to cause misidentifica-
tion of calcite with other minerals (Table 2B).
4.2. Mountain Pass, California
4.2.1. AST_07xt data
4.2.1.1. Band 5/6 differences. The Mountain Pass 5/6 ratio difference
values for AST_07XT and sample data range from 7.8% to 25.8% with an
average of 13.1%, and the 5/6 ratio differences for AST_07XT and AVIRIS
spectral units range from 2.2% to 5.0% with an average difference of 3.4%
(Table 1C and D). The wide variation of difference in the sample 5/6 ratio
data are due to deeper 2.2-µm absorption features recorded by the ASD
spectrometer than observed in the ASTER reflectance data for Al- and Fe-
muscovite samples (Fig. 13; Table 1C). This is due to selective field
sampling of the sericite-rich rocks in the area of the ASTER image pixel.
Although there is greater 5/6 ratio difference variation in the sample
data than the AVIRIS spectral unit data, the 5/6 ratio difference data and
2020 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025
Fig. 12. AST_07XT, RefL1b and AVIRIS (resampled to ASTER bandpasses) SWIR averaged image spectra of spectral units from the Cuprite, Nevada, area (Fig. 3). The dotted line is
situated at ASTER band 5 (2.165 µm).
visual comparisons of AST_07XT spectra to AVIRIS spectral units and
sample spectra indicate that band 5 reflectance is anomalously low
(Table 1C and D; Figs. 13 and 14). The lower band 5 reflectance in the
AST_07XT data eliminated the 2.2-µm absorption feature in the
muscovite–biotite sample but did not eliminate the feature in the Al-
and Fe-muscovite, slate, and diorite samples (Figs. 13 and 14). Spectral
Analyst matched Al-muscovite to Fe-muscovite (Table 2C). Thus, the
low band 5 reflectance anomaly in AST_07XT data at the Mountain Pass,
California, site is severe enough to cause misidentification of minerals
with 2.2-µm absorption features (also seen at the Cuprite, Nevada site).
4.2.1.2. Band 9/8 differences. The Mountain Pass 9/8 ratio differences
for AST_07XT and sample data range from − 9.0% to − 20.4% with an
average of − 15.7%, and 9/8 ratio differences for AST_07XT and AVIRIS
spectral units data range from − 16.8% to −19.0% with an average of
−17.6% (Table 1C and D). The 9/8 ratio difference data and visual
comparisons of AST_07XT spectra to AVIRIS spectral unit and sample
spectra illustrate that band 9 reflectance is anomalously high with
respect to band 8 (Table 1C and D; Figs. 13 and 14). Spectral Analyst
correctly matched the AST_07XT limestone spectral unit; however,
the AST_07XT band 9 reflectance anomaly was high enough to cause
misidentification of epidote, dolomite, and Fe MgOH–Al OH minerals
as limestone (calcite; Table 2C).
4.2.2. RefL1b
4.2.2.1. Band 5/6 differences. The Mountain Pass 5/6 ratio differences
for RefL1b and sample data ranged from − 0.68% to 17.5% with an
average of 4.6%, and 5/6 ratio differences for RefL1b and AVIRIS
spectral units ranged from − 3.18% to −5.4% with an average of
−4.5% (Table 1C and D). If the Fe- and Al-muscovite samples are
excluded the 5/6 difference average for samples drops to 2.4%. The 5/6
ratio difference data and visual assessment of sample, AVIRIS, and
RefL1b spectra indicate that the RefL1b spectra are similar in spectral
shape to AVIRIS spectral unit and sample spectra from Mountain Pass,
California (Table 1C and D; Figs. 13 and 14). Spectral Analyst correctly
matched the Al- and Fe-muscovites that contain ASTER band 6
absorption features (Table 2D).
4.2.2.2. Band 9/8 differences. The 9/8 ratio differences for RefL1b and
sample data ranged from − 0.241% to −10.71% with an average
of −4.9%, and 9/8 ratio differences for RefL1b and AVIRIS spectral
units ranged from − 5.91% to −8.20% with an average of −6.7%
(Table 1C and D). The 9/8 ratio differences and RefL1b spectra
compared to AVIRIS spectral units and sample spectra illustrate that
band 9 is anomalously high with respect to band 8 (Table 1C and D;
Figs. 13 and 14). Of the 4 image-mineral spectral groups with 2.31–
 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025
Fig. 13. AST_07XT and RefL1b SWIR image spectra, and sample SWIR spectra (resampled to ASTER bandpasses) taken from the same location in the Mountain Pass, California, area.
The dotted line is situated at ASTER band 5 (2.165 µm).
2.33-µm absorption features, Spectral Analyst correctly matched all
minerals except for Fe,Mg–O–H + Al–O–H which was mismatched
with epidote (Figs. 13 and 14; Table 2D). Thus, Spectral Analyst results
indicate that the band 9 anomalies in the Mountain Pass RefL1b data
were typically not severe enough to cause misidentification.
5. Conclusions
Spectral Analyst matched more minerals correctly and had higher
scores for the RefL1b data than for the AST_07XT data (Table 2). RefL1b
spectra of minerals that lack ASTER band 5 absorption tend to be more
similar in spectral shape to AVIRIS spectral unit and sample spectra than
AST_07XT data (Figs. 11–14). These observations suggest that the Biggar
et al. (2005) radiance correction factors successfully adjusted the ASTER
SWIR bands in the Ref1b data to spectrally correct for the AST_07XT low
band 5 anomalies seen in high reflectance, spectrally flat areas, such as
the Cuprite, Nevada, playa (Figs. 11 and 12; Rowan & Mars, 2003).
However, relative to band 6, RefL1b band 5 reflectance is too high for
minerals with intense ASTER band 5 absorption, such as alunite (Figs. 11
and 12; Table 1A and B). The RefL1b high band 5 reflectance anomalies
2021
seen in minerals with strong 2.165-µm absorption are probably due to
residual crosstalk energy not removed by the Crosstalk algorithm
(Iwasaki & Tonooka, 2005). Thus, the Biggar et al. (2005) radiance
correction factors used in the RefL1b data only partially corrects
reflectance anomalies in ASTER band 5 and cannot be corrected using
additional gain adjustments.
Relative to band 8, band 9 reflectance values are higher for
AST_07XT data than RefL1b data, although RefL1b band 9 reflectance
was anomalously higher than AVIRIS spectral unit and sample spectra
(Figs. 11–14). Average 9/8 ratio differences for AST_07XT and RefL1b
data indicate that band 9, with respect to band 8, is 17.6% too high at
Mountain Pass, California, and 9% too high for Cuprite, Nevada,
whereas band 9 averages 6.7% too high for Mountain Pass, California,
and 6.2% too high for Cuprite, Nevada (Table 2). Band 9 anomalies in
the AST_07XT data are larger than those observed in the RefL1b data
of Mountain Pass, California, and Cuprite, Nevada, and suggest that
inaccurate water vapor data values are used for the reflectance
calibration of the AST_07XT data. The use of concurrent MODIS water
vapor data in the atmospheric correction of the RefL1b resulted in
lower band 9 anomalies than the AST_07XT data.
2022 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025

Fig. 14. AST_07XT, RefL1b and AVIRIS (resampled to ASTER bandpasses) SWIR averaged image spectra of spectral units from the Mountain Pass, California, area (Fig. 4). The dotted
line is situated at ASTER band 5 (2.165 µm).

AST_07XT and RefL1b use different radiative transfer models to

correct radiance data to reflectance which could result in spectral
variation (Chandrasekhar, 1960; Herman & Browning, 1965; ImSpec,
2004; Thome et al., 1999). To test possible variation, a reflectance
dataset from the Cuprite, Nevada, study area was compiled from
crosstalk-corrected ASTER Level 1b data using the same radiative
transfer code to correct RefL1b data but without applying Biggar et al.,
(2005) radiance correction factors. ASTER bands 4 thru 7, where variable
water vapor values have less influence on reflectance correction, were
used for spectral comparison. Spectra from 1.65 to 2.26 µm of spectral
units for the AST_07XT and the ASTER reflectance dataset without
Biggar et al., (2005) radiance correction factors are almost identical in
spectral shape (Fig. 15). Thus, the similarity of spectral shapes suggests
that the different radiative transfer codes produce similar reflectance
datasets and that spectral variation must be caused by other variables
such as water vapor or crosstalk.
Although the assessment of spectral data suggests that RefL1b data
are more consistent and spectrally more correct than AST_07XT data,
the Spectral Analyst results indicate that spectral discrimination using
RefL1b data for some minerals, such as alunite from kaolinite, are not
feasible without additional spectral calibration using site specific
spectral data. In addition, RefL1b spectra of minerals that should be Fig. 15. ASTER image spectra from Cuprite, Nevada, of playa and kaolinite spectral units
spectrally flat in the SWIR exhibit an anomalous, weak 2.2-µm band 6 for AST_07XT (red) and crosstalk-corrected ASTER reflectance data without application
absorption features that caused mineral misclassification at the Cuprite of Biggar et al., (2005) radiance correction factors (black).
 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025 2023

site (Table 2B; Figs. 11 and 12). However, when matching RefL1b Appendix
(continued)
A (continued)
spectra, Spectral Analyst did not confuse minerals with strong 2.165-µm Nevada
Cuprite, Nevada, ASTER band Sample,
AVIRIS RefL1b, AST_07XT,
spectral absorption, such as alunite, kaolinite, and dickite, with minerals samples unit
spectral wavelength, DN
spectral DN DN
spectra micrometer unit, DN
that have moderate to strong 2.2-µm absorption features, such as
muscovite and illite (Table 2B). On the basis of the Spectral Analyst Alunite 1.650 4763 4368 4146
results, the mapping of mineral groups, such as advanced argillic 2.165 2914 2600 2526
2.205 3099 2524 2652
alteration minerals (kaolinite, alunite, and dickite) phyllic alteration 2.260 3406 2758 2954
minerals (sericite) and propylitic minerals (calcite, epidote, and 2.330 3099 2510 2696
chlorite), are possible using RefL1b data without using additional 2.395 2669 2391 2646
spectral data from the site for calibration. Thus, ASTER regional mapping Buddingtonite 1.650 5238 4598 4368
2.165 3475 2833 2755
projects using will be more feasible using RefL1b data.
2.205 3584 2760 2902
2.260 3818 2956 3168
2.330 3664 2807 3018
Appendix A 2.395 3328 2652 2953
Calcite 1.650 3389 3342 3168
ASTER-resampled sample spectra, ASTER-resampled AVIRIS spectral unit spectra, RefL1b 2.165 3121 2674 2592
spectra and AST_07XT spectra, of the Cuprite, Nevada, and Mountain Pass, California study 2.205 3044 2485 2606
areas. All spectra are in reflectance, DN = digital number. Sample reflectance values were 2.260 2892 2432 2601
scaled up to ASTER digital numbers using a single multiplier for each sample spectrum. 2.330 2625 2197 2349
2.395 2669 2331 2549
Cuprite, Nevada ASTER band Sample, RefL1b, AST_07XT,
Dickite 1.650 4856 4363 4139
samples wavelength, DN DN DN
2.165 2739 2487 2412
micrometer
2.205 2779 2342 2453
Alunite 22 1.650 3004 4134 3920 2.260 3060 2552 2732
2.165 1957 2443 2370 2.330 2664 2244 2398
2.205 2055 2337 2430 2.395 2383 2183 2374
2.260 2303 2559 2740 Hydro-illite 1.650 4333 3907 3707
2.330 2201 2267 2430 2.165 3309 2664 2584
2.395 1926 2200 2420 2.205 3164 2440 2559
Buddingtonite 27 1.650 3113 4635 4400 2.260 3292 2574 2755
2.165 2063 2920 2840 2.330 2974 2321 2482
2.205 2149 2891 3040 2.395 2682 2283 2494
2.260 2397 2945 3190 Kaolinite 1.650 4667 4267 4051
2.330 2472 2965 3160 2.165 3096 2657 2581
2.395 2352 2776 3060 2.205 3161 2536 2665
Calcite 4 1.650 3126 3385 3210 2.260 3373 2726 2919
2.165 3303 2650 2600 2.330 3102 2498 2684
2.205 3229 2472 2620 2.395 2753 2403 2665
2.260 3111 2417 2620 Muscovite and chlorite 1.650 3990 3746 3553
2.330 2959 2213 2380 2.165 3290 2730 2646
2.395 3212 2389 2610 2.205 3034 2469 2589
Dickite 8 1.650 4961 4063 3860 2.260 3098 2543 2720
2.165 3253 2683 2610 2.330 2814 2308 2467
2.205 3178 2495 2620 2.395 2638 2310 2519
2.260 3613 2559 2770 Muscovite 1.650 3424 3325 3153
2.330 3527 2366 2540 2.165 2793 2427 2352
2.395 3075 2280 2530 2.205 2569 2157 2260
Smectite 24 1.650 2651 3921 3720 2.260 2644 2233 2389
2.165 2510 2772 2690 2.330 2352 2001 2136
2.205 2318 2472 2590 2.395 2170 2021 2194
2.260 2481 2646 2800 Opal 1.650 4602 4275 4059
2.330 2312 2393 2560 2.165 3853 3043 2957
2.395 2148 2339 2530 2.205 3711 2857 3003
Kaolinite 10 1.650 3941 4635 4510 2.260 3642 2879 3085
2.165 2080 2713 2580 2.330 3554 2746 2952
2.205 2014 2549 2600 2.395 3340 2709 3008
2.260 2298 2671 2950 Playa 1.650 5973 5147 4892
2.330 2004 2493 2630 2.165 5364 3993 3894
2.395 1830 2389 2660 2.205 5127 3777 3983
Opal 15 1.650 3564 4101 3890 2.260 5171 3789 4066
2.165 2649 2802 2690 2.330 4977 3704 4006
2.205 2166 2603 2740 2.395 4598 3542 4008
2.260 2079 2534 2710 Unaltered tuff 1.650 3582 3499 3322
2.330 2278 2539 2730 2.165 3360 2756 2678
2.395 2193 2448 2730 2.205 3332 2606 2741
Playa 1.650 5394 5419 5150 2.260 3288 2632 2819
2.165 5239 4296 4210 2.330 3227 2520 2712
2.205 4925 4078 4290 2.395 3088 2519 2806
2.260 5006 4175 4480
2.330 4848 3816 4120 Mountain Pass, ASTER band Sample, RefL1b, AST_07XT,
2.395 4624 3798 4290 California, wavelength, DN DN DN
Unaltered tuff 28 1.650 2150 3778 3590 samples micrometer
2.165 2478 2890 2900
Al-muscovite– 1.650 3773 4325 4100
2.205 2422 2841 3010
colosseum 2.165 2407 2609 2580
2.260 2465 2864 3130
mine 1 2.205 1587 1945 2050
2.330 2538 2712 3030
2.395 2561 2696 3070 (continued on next page)
2024 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025

Appendix
(continued)
A (continued) Appendix
(continued)
A (continued)
Cuprite, Nevada
Mountain Pass, ASTER band Sample, RefL1b, AST_07XT, Cuprite,
Mountain Nevada
Pass, ASTER band Sample,
AVIRIS RefL1b, AST_07XT,
samples
California, wavelength, DN DN DN samples
California, spectral wavelength, DN
spectral DN DN
samples micrometer unit spectra micrometer unit, DN
2.260 2281 2413 2540 2.165 2572 2402 2362
2.330 1767 1981 2120 2.205 2333 2117 2244
2.395 1535 1933 2220 2.260 2282 2118 2256
Dolomite 14 1.650 5901 4361 4150 2.330 2052 1907 2065
2.165 5087 3011 2970 2.395 1927 1947 2333
2.205 4621 2733 2910 Limestone 1.650 3329 3460 3284
2.260 3678 2443 2610 2.165 2819 2530 2485
2.330 3563 2147 2340 2.205 2811 2395 2536
2.395 3884 2396 2940 2.260 2470 2184 2323
Epidote chlorite skarn 3 1.650 3917 3626 3440 2.330 2087 1910 2059
2.165 3291 2666 2610 2.395 2212 2137 2529
2.205 2921 2352 2490
2.260 2401 2170 2310
2.330 2019 1950 2080
2.395 2093 2060 2420
References
Chrysotile 21B 1.650 4400 4256 4040
Ashley, R. P., & Abrams, M. J. (1980). Alteration mapping using multispectral images—
2.165 3199 2925 2870
Cuprite mining district, Esmeralda County, Nevada. Open-File Report — U.S.
2.205 2867 2606 2780 Geological Survey, 17, 80−367.
2.260 2293 2359 2510 Biggar, S. F., Thome, K. J., McCorkel, J. T., & D'Amico, J. M. (2005). Vicarious calibration of
2.330 1872 2052 2200 the ASTER SWIR sensor including crosstalk correction. Proceedings International
2.395 1950 2142 2490 Society Optical Engineering, 5882, 588217.
Fe-muscovite morning 1.650 4477 4081 3880 Chandrasekhar, S. (1960). Radiative transfer.New York, NY: Dover Publications 393 pp.
star mine 2 2.165 3608 2900 2860 Clark, R. N., Gallagher, A. J., & Swayze, G. A. (1990). Material absorption band depth
2.205 2690 2405 2560 mapping of imaging spectrometer data using the complete band shape least-
2.260 3149 2497 2660 squares algorithm simultaneously fit to multiple spectral features from multiple
2.330 2794 2237 2450 materials. Proceedings of the Third Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer
2.395 2500 2160 2660 (AVIRIS) Workshop. JPL Publication, 90-54. (pp. 176−186).
De Berg, M., Cheong, O., Van Kreveld, M., & Overmars, M. (2008). Computational geometry:
Diorite 15 1.650 3162 3313 3150
Algorithms and applications (pp. 191−218). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
2.165 2931 2547 2480
Fujisada, H. (1995). Design and performance of ASTER instrument. Proceedings
2.205 2358 2173 2310
International Society Optical Engineering, 2583, 16−25.
2.260 2633 2195 2370 Gao, B. and Kaufman, Y. J. (1998). Algorithm Technical Background Document: The
2.330 2398 2007 2180 MODIS Near-IR Water Vapor Algorithm, Product ID: MOD05 — Total Precipitable
2.395 2250 2033 2490 Water. Science Publications and Reports, 25. (http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/atbd/
LT brown slate 09 1.650 2520 2683 2550 atbd_mod03.pdf)
2.165 2668 2088 2050 Herman, B. M., & Browning, S. R. (1965). A numerical solution to the equation of
2.205 2172 1814 1930 radiative transfer. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 22, 559−566.
2.260 2403 1813 1960 Hunt, G. R. (1977). Spectral signatures of particulate minerals in the visible and near
2.330 2183 1618 1760 infrared. Geophysics, 42(3), 501−513.
2.395 2089 1633 1980 Hunt, G. R., & Salisbury, J. W. (1970). Visible and near-infrared spectra of minerals and
Muscovite and biotite 10 1.650 3758 3593 3410 rocks — (Pt.) 1, silicate minerals. Modern Geology, 1(4), 283−300.
2.165 3650 2576 2560 Hunt, G. R., Salisbury, J. W., & Lenhoff, C. J. (1971). Visible and near-infrared spectra of
minerals and rocks: IV. Sulphides and sulphates. Modern Geology, 3, 1−14.
2.205 3331 2379 2520
ImSpec LLC. (2004). ACORN 5.0 tutorial manual.California: Pasadena 143 pp., (http://
2.260 3401 2359 2480
www.imspec.com)
2.330 3095 2052 2220 ITT. (2008). The Environment for Visualizing Images (ENVI) software. Boulder, Colorado:
2.395 3049 2142 2550 ITT Visual Information Solutions (http://www.ittvis.com/ProductServices/ENVI.
aspx)
Mountain Pass, ASTER band AVIRIS RefL1b, AST_07XT, Iwasaki, A., & Tonooka, H. (2005). Validation of a crosstalk correction algorithm for
California, spectral wavelength, spectral DN DN ASTER/SWIR. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions, 43(12),
unit spectra micrometer unit, DN 2747−2751.
Mars, J. C., & Rowan, L. C. (2006). Regional mapping of phyllic- and argillic-altered rocks
Al-muscovite 1.650 3579 3611 3430 in the Zagros magmatic arc, Iran, using Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission
2.165 2949 2569 2527 and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) data and logical operator algorithms.Geosphere,
2.205 2740 2318 2458 2, 161−186 2 plates.
2.260 2718 2332 2483 Rowan, L. C., Hook, S. J., Abrams, M. J., & Mars, J. C. (2003). Mapping hydrothermally
2.330 2416 2093 2267 altered rocks at Cuprite, Nevada, using the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal
2.395 2270 2109 2529 Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER), a new satellite-imaging system.
Dolomite 1.650 3100 3301 3134 Economic Geology and the Bulletin of the Society of Economic Geologists, 98(5),
2.165 2642 2434 2392 1019−1027.
2.205 2606 2280 2415 Rowan, L. C., & Mars, J. C. (2003). Lithologic mapping in the Mountain Pass, California,
2.260 2313 2117 2254 area using Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer
2.330 2085 1923 2078 (ASTER) data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 84(3), 350−366.
Rowan, L. C., Mars, J. C., & Simpson, C. J. (2006). Lithologic mapping of the Mordor,
2.395 2124 2083 2479
NT, Australia ultramafic complex by using the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal
Epidote 1.650 3192 3383 3212
Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER). Remote Sensing of Environment, 99,
2.165 2788 2534 2492 105−126.
2.205 2663 2319 2457 Sabins, F. F., Jr. (1987). Remote sensing, principles and interpretation.New York: W.H.
2.260 2399 2182 2323 Freeman Company 449 pp.
2.330 2075 1931 2089 Swayze, G.A. (1997). The hydrothermal and structural history of the Cuprite mining
2.395 2077 2050 2449 district, southwestern Nevada: An integrated geological and geophysical approach.
Fe–Mg–OH + Al–OH 1.650 3335 3459 3284 Ph.D. dissertation, Boulder, Colorado, University of Colorado, 399 p.
2.165 2822 2530 2488 Theodore, T. G., Tosdal, R. M., Rytuba, J. J., Bishop, K. R., Conway, C. M., Dohrenwend, J. C.,
2.205 2720 2327 2466 et al. (1991). Evaluation of metallic mineral resources and their geologic controls in
2.260 2518 2235 2380 the East Mojave National Scenic Area, San Bernardino County, California. Open-File
2.330 2225 2001 2163 Report — U.S. Geological Survey, 91−427 (six map plates).
2.395 2184 2100 2501 Thome, K., Biggar, S., & Takashima, T. (1999). Algorithm theoretical basis document for
ASTER Level 2B1 – Surface Radiance and ASTER Level 2B5 – Surface Reflectance.Science
Fe-muscovite 1.650 3040 3271 3107
Publications and Reports, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 45 pp.
 J.C. Mars, L.C. Rowan / Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (2010) 2011–2025 2025

(http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_homepage/for_scientists/atbd/docs/ASTER/atbd-
ast-07-09.pdf)
Tsu, H., Fujisada, H., Arai, K., Fukue, K., Iwasaki, A., Sakuma, F., et al. (1996). Algorithm
Theoretical Basis Document for ASTER Level-1 Data Processing (Ver. 3.0). Science
Publications and Reports, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 199 pp.
(http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_homepage/for_scientists/atbd/viewInstrument.
php?instrument=24)
Vane, G., Green, R. O., Chrien, T. G., Enmark, H. T., Hansen, E. G., & Porter, W. M. (1993).
The airborne visible-infrared imaging spectrometer (AVIRIS). Remote Sensing of
Environment, 44, 127−143.