通过减少海底图像覆盖率估算的变异性和偏差改进珊瑚监测工作

IF 3.8 3区 地球科学 Q1 OCEANOGRAPHY Progress in Oceanography Pub Date : 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1016/j.pocean.2024.103214
Emma J. Curtis , Jennifer M. Durden , Brian J. Bett , Veerle A.I. Huvenne , Nils Piechaud , Jenny Walker , James Albrecht , Miquel Massot-Campos , Takaki Yamada , Adrian Bodenmann , Jose Cappelletto , James A. Strong , Blair Thornton
{"title":"通过减少海底图像覆盖率估算的变异性和偏差改进珊瑚监测工作","authors":"Emma J. Curtis ,&nbsp;Jennifer M. Durden ,&nbsp;Brian J. Bett ,&nbsp;Veerle A.I. Huvenne ,&nbsp;Nils Piechaud ,&nbsp;Jenny Walker ,&nbsp;James Albrecht ,&nbsp;Miquel Massot-Campos ,&nbsp;Takaki Yamada ,&nbsp;Adrian Bodenmann ,&nbsp;Jose Cappelletto ,&nbsp;James A. Strong ,&nbsp;Blair Thornton","doi":"10.1016/j.pocean.2024.103214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Seabed cover of organisms is an established metric for assessing the status of many vulnerable marine ecosystems. When deriving cover estimates from seafloor imagery, a source of uncertainty in capturing the true distribution of organisms is introduced by the inherent variability and bias of the annotation method used to extract ecological data. We investigated variability and bias in two common annotation methods for estimating organism cover, and the role of size selectivity in this variability. Eleven annotators estimated sparse cold-water coral cover in the same 96 images with both grid-based and manual segmentation annotation methods. The standard deviation between annotators was three times greater in the grid-based method compared to segmentation, and grid-based estimates from annotators tended to overestimate coral cover. Size selectivity biased the manual segmentation; the minimum size of colonies segmented varied between annotators fivefold. Two modelling techniques (based on Richard’s selection curves and Gaussian processes) were used to impute areas where annotators identified colonies too small for segmentation. By imputing small coral sizes in segmentation estimates, the coefficient of variation between annotators was reduced by approximately 10%, and method bias (compared to a reference dataset) was reduced by up to 23%. Therefore, for sparse, low cover organisms, manual segmentation of images is recommended to minimise annotator variability and bias. Uncertainty in cover estimates may be further reduced by addressing size selectivity bias when annotating small organisms in images using a data-driven modelling technique.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20620,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Oceanography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving coral monitoring by reducing variability and bias in cover estimates from seabed images\",\"authors\":\"Emma J. Curtis ,&nbsp;Jennifer M. Durden ,&nbsp;Brian J. Bett ,&nbsp;Veerle A.I. Huvenne ,&nbsp;Nils Piechaud ,&nbsp;Jenny Walker ,&nbsp;James Albrecht ,&nbsp;Miquel Massot-Campos ,&nbsp;Takaki Yamada ,&nbsp;Adrian Bodenmann ,&nbsp;Jose Cappelletto ,&nbsp;James A. Strong ,&nbsp;Blair Thornton\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pocean.2024.103214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Seabed cover of organisms is an established metric for assessing the status of many vulnerable marine ecosystems. When deriving cover estimates from seafloor imagery, a source of uncertainty in capturing the true distribution of organisms is introduced by the inherent variability and bias of the annotation method used to extract ecological data. We investigated variability and bias in two common annotation methods for estimating organism cover, and the role of size selectivity in this variability. Eleven annotators estimated sparse cold-water coral cover in the same 96 images with both grid-based and manual segmentation annotation methods. The standard deviation between annotators was three times greater in the grid-based method compared to segmentation, and grid-based estimates from annotators tended to overestimate coral cover. Size selectivity biased the manual segmentation; the minimum size of colonies segmented varied between annotators fivefold. Two modelling techniques (based on Richard’s selection curves and Gaussian processes) were used to impute areas where annotators identified colonies too small for segmentation. By imputing small coral sizes in segmentation estimates, the coefficient of variation between annotators was reduced by approximately 10%, and method bias (compared to a reference dataset) was reduced by up to 23%. Therefore, for sparse, low cover organisms, manual segmentation of images is recommended to minimise annotator variability and bias. Uncertainty in cover estimates may be further reduced by addressing size selectivity bias when annotating small organisms in images using a data-driven modelling technique.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Oceanography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Oceanography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966112400020X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OCEANOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Oceanography","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966112400020X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OCEANOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

海底生物覆盖率是评估许多脆弱海洋生态系统状况的既定指标。从海底图像中得出覆盖率估计值时,用于提取生态数据的注释方法的固有变异性和偏差会给捕捉生物的真实分布带来不确定性。我们研究了估算生物覆盖率的两种常用注释方法的变异性和偏差,以及大小选择性在这种变异性中的作用。11 位标注者使用基于网格的标注方法和手动分割标注方法估算了同一 96 幅图像中稀疏冷水珊瑚的覆盖率。与分割法相比,网格注释法中注释者之间的标准偏差要大三倍,而且注释者基于网格的估计往往会高估珊瑚覆盖率。大小选择性对人工分割产生了偏差;不同注释者所分割的珊瑚群的最小大小相差五倍。我们使用了两种建模技术(基于理查德选择曲线和高斯过程)来估算注释者发现的珊瑚太小而无法分割的区域。通过将小珊瑚尺寸归因于分割估计值,注释者之间的差异系数降低了约 10%,方法偏差(与参考数据集相比)降低了 23%。因此,对于稀疏、覆盖率低的生物,建议对图像进行手动分割,以尽量减少注释者之间的差异和偏差。在使用数据驱动建模技术对图像中的小型生物进行标注时,通过解决尺寸选择性偏差问题,可进一步降低覆盖率估算的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving coral monitoring by reducing variability and bias in cover estimates from seabed images

Seabed cover of organisms is an established metric for assessing the status of many vulnerable marine ecosystems. When deriving cover estimates from seafloor imagery, a source of uncertainty in capturing the true distribution of organisms is introduced by the inherent variability and bias of the annotation method used to extract ecological data. We investigated variability and bias in two common annotation methods for estimating organism cover, and the role of size selectivity in this variability. Eleven annotators estimated sparse cold-water coral cover in the same 96 images with both grid-based and manual segmentation annotation methods. The standard deviation between annotators was three times greater in the grid-based method compared to segmentation, and grid-based estimates from annotators tended to overestimate coral cover. Size selectivity biased the manual segmentation; the minimum size of colonies segmented varied between annotators fivefold. Two modelling techniques (based on Richard’s selection curves and Gaussian processes) were used to impute areas where annotators identified colonies too small for segmentation. By imputing small coral sizes in segmentation estimates, the coefficient of variation between annotators was reduced by approximately 10%, and method bias (compared to a reference dataset) was reduced by up to 23%. Therefore, for sparse, low cover organisms, manual segmentation of images is recommended to minimise annotator variability and bias. Uncertainty in cover estimates may be further reduced by addressing size selectivity bias when annotating small organisms in images using a data-driven modelling technique.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Progress in Oceanography
Progress in Oceanography 地学-海洋学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
138
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Progress in Oceanography publishes the longer, more comprehensive papers that most oceanographers feel are necessary, on occasion, to do justice to their work. Contributions are generally either a review of an aspect of oceanography or a treatise on an expanding oceanographic subject. The articles cover the entire spectrum of disciplines within the science of oceanography. Occasionally volumes are devoted to collections of papers and conference proceedings of exceptional interest. Essential reading for all oceanographers.
期刊最新文献
Heterogeneous Sources, Distribution, and removal processes of dissolved black carbon from East China Sea shelf to open ocean of Northwest Pacific Modelling global mesozooplankton biomass using machine learning Changes in glacial meltwater system around Amundsen sea Polynya illustrated by radium and oxygen isotopes Drivers of growth and decay of Sargassum in the Tropical Atlantic: A Lagrangian approach Long-term variation of the eddy kinetic energy in the Northeastern South China sea
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1