Marine Geophysical Research

, Volume 39, Issue 1–2, pp 271–288 | Cite as

Combining pixel and object based image analysis of ultra-high resolution multibeam bathymetry and backscatter for habitat mapping in shallow marine waters

  • Daniel Ierodiaconou
  • Alexandre C. G. Schimel
  • David Kennedy
  • Jacquomo Monk
  • Grace Gaylard
  • Mary Young
  • Markus Diesing
  • Alex Rattray
Original Research Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Habitat mapping data are increasingly being recognised for their importance in underpinning marine spatial planning. The ability to collect ultra-high resolution (cm) multibeam echosounder (MBES) data in shallow waters has facilitated understanding of the fine-scale distribution of benthic habitats in these areas that are often prone to human disturbance. Developing quantitative and objective approaches to integrate MBES data with ground observations for predictive modelling is essential for ensuring repeatability and providing confidence measures for habitat mapping products. Whilst supervised classification approaches are becoming more common, users are often faced with a decision whether to implement a pixel based (PB) or an object based (OB) image analysis approach, with often limited understanding of the potential influence of that decision on final map products and relative importance of data inputs to patterns observed. In this study, we apply an ensemble learning approach capable of integrating PB and OB Image Analysis from ultra-high resolution MBES bathymetry and backscatter data for mapping benthic habitats in Refuge Cove, a temperate coastal embayment in south-east Australia. We demonstrate the relative importance of PB and OB seafloor derivatives for the five broad benthic habitats that dominate the site. We found that OB and PB approaches performed well with differences in classification accuracy but not discernible statistically. However, a model incorporating elements of both approaches proved to be significantly more accurate than OB or PB methods alone and demonstrate the benefits of using MBES bathymetry and backscatter combined for class discrimination.

Keywords

Multibeam echosounder Marine habitat mapping Object based image analysis Random forests 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Matt Edmunds from Australian Marine Ecology and Dr Steffan Howe from Parks Victoria for provision of the AUV data collected as part of an invasive pest survey. We thank Sean Blake for assistance with the collection of MBES data aboard Deakin University’s research vessel Yolla. We thank the Port Welshpool Coast Guard for providing accommodation and vessel support during video and sediment surveys. AR and MY were supported by the Victorian Marine Habitat Mapping Program with funds through Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning, Parks Victoria and Australian National Data Services (ANDS) through funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Programme. JM was supported by the Marine Biodiversity Hub through funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Programme. This project was funded by Parks Victoria, POZIBLE project Voyages of Discovery and Somers Carroll Productions.

Supplementary material

11001_2017_9338_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1254 KB)

References

  1. Baker EK, Harris PT (2012) Habitat mapping and marine management. Seafloor Geomorphol Benthic Habitat 21:23–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385140-6.00002-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaschke T (2010) Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 65:2–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaschke T et al (2014) Geographic object-based image analysis—towards a new paradigm. ISPRS Isprs J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 87:180–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown CJ, Smith SJ, Lawton P, Anderson JT (2011) Benthic habitat mapping: a review of progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using acoustic techniques. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 92:502–520.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calvert J, Strong JA, Service M, McGonigle C, Quinn R (2015) An evaluation of supervised and unsupervised classification techniques for marine benthic habitat mapping using multibeam echosounder data. ICES J Mar Sci 72:1498–1513.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell J (1981) Spatial autocorrelation effects upon the accuracy of supervised classification of land cover. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 47:355–363Google Scholar
  8. Costa BM, Battista TA, Pittman SJ (2009) Comparative evaluation of airborne LiDAR and ship-based multibeam SoNAR bathymetry and intensity for mapping coral reef ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ 113:1082–1100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cutler DR, Edwards TC, Beard KH, Cutler A, Hess KT, Gibson J, Lawler JJ (2007) Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88:2783–2792.  https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0539.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dauvin JC, Bellan G, Bellan-Santini D (2008) The need for clear and comparable terminology in benthic ecology. Part II. application of the European directives. Aquat Conserv-Mar Freshw Ecosyst 18:446–456.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devillers R, Pressey RL, Grech A, Kittinger JN, Edgar GJ, Ward T, Watson R (2015) Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease of establishment over need for protection? Aquat Conserv-Mar Freshw Ecosyst 25:480–504.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diesing M, Stephens D (2015) A multi-model ensemble approach to seabed mapping. J Sea Res 100:62–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2014.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diesing M, Green SL, Stephens D, Lark RM, Stewart HA, Dove D (2014) Mapping seabed sediments: comparison of manual, geostatistical, object-based image analysis and machine learning approaches. Cont Shelf Res 84:107–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2014.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diesing M, Mitchell P, Stephens D (2016) Image-based seabed classification: what can we learn from terrestrial remote sensing? ICES J Mar Sci 73:2425–2441.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dragut L, Tiede D, Levick SR (2010) ESP: a tool to estimate scale parameter for multiresolution image segmentation of remotely sensed data. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 24:859–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dragut L, Csillik O, Eisank C, Tiede D (2014) Automated parameterisation for multi-scale image segmentation on multiple layers. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 88:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edmunds M, Pritchard K, McArthur M (2012) Victorian Subtidal Reef Monitoring Program: the reef biota at Wilsons Promontory Marine National Park, November 2010 vol 71. MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  18. Edmunds M, Donnelly D, Brown H (2013) Survey for Marine Invasive Species at Refuge Cove, Wilsons Promontory, May 2013. Report to Parks VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  19. Fonseca L, Calder B (2005) Geocoder: an efficient backscatter map constructor. In: U.S. Hydro 2005 Conference, San Diego, USA, p 9Google Scholar
  20. Fonseca L, Brown C, Calder B, Mayer L, Rzhanov Y (2009) Angular range analysis of acoustic themes from stanton banks Ireland: a link between visual interpretation and multibeam echosounder angular signatures. Appl Acoustics 70:1298–1304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2008.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gray J (1997) Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodivers Conserv 6:153–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene HG et al (1999) A classification scheme for deep seafloor habitats. Oceanol Acta 22:663–678.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0399-1784(00)88957-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hammerstad E (2000) EM technical note: backscattering and seabed image reflectivity. Kongsberg Maritime AS, HortenGoogle Scholar
  24. Hasan RC, Ierodiaconou D, Laurenson L (2012a) Combining angular response classification and backscatter imagery segmentation for benthic biological habitat mapping. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 97:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hasan RC, Ierodiaconou D, Monk J (2012b) Evaluation of four supervised learning methods for benthic habitat mapping using backscatter from multi-beam sonar. Remote Sens 4:3427–3443.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4113427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hasan RC, Ierodiaconou D, Laurenson L, Schimel A (2014) Integrating multibeam backscatter angular response, mosaic and bathymetry data for benthic habitat mapping. PLoS ONE 9  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097339
  27. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ierodiaconou D, Burq S, Reston M, Laurenson L (2007) Marine benthic habitat mapping using multibeam data, georeferenced video and image classification techniques in Victoria, Australia. J Spat Sci 52:93–104.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2007.9635105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ierodiaconou D, Monk J, Rattray A, Laurenson L, Versace VL (2011) Comparison of automated classification techniques for predicting benthic biological communities using hydroacoustics and video observations. Cont Shelf Res 31:S28–S38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2010.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson JBC (2008) Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11458–11465.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802812105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James N, Bone Y (2011) Neritic carbonate sediments in a temperate realm. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kendall MS, Jensen OP, Alexander C, Field D, McFall G, Bohne R, Monaco ME (2005) Benthic mapping using sonar, video transects, and an innovative approach to accuracy assessment: a characterization of bottom features in the Georgia Bight. J Coast Res 21:1154–1165.  https://doi.org/10.2112/03-0101r.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennedy DM, Ierodiaconou D, Schimel AGC (2014) Granitic coastal geomorphology: applying integrated terrestrial and bathymetric LiDAR with multibeam sonar to examine coastal landscape evolution. Earth Surf Proc Land 39:1663–1674.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3615 Google Scholar
  34. Kostylev VE, Todd BJ, Fader GBJ, Courtney RC, Cameron GDM, Pickrill RA (2001) Benthic habitat mapping on the Scotian Shelf based on multibeam bathymetry, surficial geology and sea floor photographs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 219:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhn M (2008) Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Softw 28:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lacharité M, Brown C, Gazzola V (2017) Multisource multibeam backscatter data: developing a strategy for the production of benthic habitat maps using semi-automated seafloor classification methods. Mar Gephys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11001-017-9331-6 Google Scholar
  37. Lamarche G, Lurton X (2017) Recommendations for improved and coherent acquisitionand processing of backscatter data from seafloor-mapping sonars. Mar Gephys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11001-017-9315-6 Google Scholar
  38. Lecours V, Dolan MFJ, Micallef A, Lucieer VL (2016) A review of marine geomorphometry, the quantitative study of the seafloor. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20:3207–3244.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3207-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by random forest. R News 2:18–22Google Scholar
  40. Lucieer VL, Lamarche G (2011) Unsupervised fuzzy classification and object-based image analysis of multibeam data to map deep water substrates, Cook Strait. NZ Cont Shelf Res 31:1236–1247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2011.04.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lucieer VL, Hill NA, Barrett NS, Nichol S (2013) Do marine substrates ‘look’ and ‘sound’ the same? Supervised classification of multibeam acoustic data using autonomous underwater vehicle images. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 117:94–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lucieer V, Roche M, Degrendele K, Malik M, Dolan M, Lamarche G (2017) User expectations for multibeam echo sounders backscatter strength data-looking back into the future. Mar Geophys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11001-017-9316-5 Google Scholar
  43. Lundblad ER et al (2006) A benthic terrain classification scheme for American Samoa. Mar Geodesy 29:89–111.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01490410600738021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lurton X (2010) An introduction to underwater acoustics—principles and applications, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lurton X, Lamarche G (2015) Backscatter measurements by seafloor-mapping sonars. Guidelines and recommendations vol. http://geohab.org/publications/
  46. McArthur MA et al (2010) On the use of abiotic surrogates to describe marine benthic biodiversity. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 88:21–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2010.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McKenzie DP et al (1996) Comparing correlated kappas by resampling: is one level of agreement significantly different from another? J Psychiatric Res 30:483–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Micallef A, Le Bas TP, Huvenne VAI, Blondel P, Huhnerbach V, Deidun A (2012) A multi-method approach for benthic habitat mapping of shallow coastal areas with high-resolution multibeam data. Cont Shelf Res 39–40:14–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2012.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mitchell PJ, Monk J, Laurenson L (2017) Sensitivity of fine-scale species distribution models to locational uncertainty in occurrence data across multiple sample sizes. Methods Ecol Evol 8:12–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Montereale-Gavazzi G, Madricardo F, Janowski L, Kruss A, Blondel P, Sigovini M, Foglini F (2016) Evaluation of seabed mapping methods for fine-scale classification of extremely shallow benthic habitats—application to the Venice Lagoon, Italy. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 170:45–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Montereale-Gavazzi G, Roche M, Lurton X, Degrendele K, Terseleer N, Van Lancker V (2017) Seafloor change detection using multibeam echosounder backscatter: case study on the Belgian part of the North Sea. Mar Geophys Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11001-017-9323-6 Google Scholar
  52. Phinn SR, Roelfsema CM, Mumby PJ (2012) Multi-scale, object-based image analysis for mapping geomorphic and ecological zones on coral reefs. Int J Remote Sens 33:3768–3797.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2011.633122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a Language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL: http://www.R-project.org
  54. Rattray A, Ierodiaconou D, Laurenson L, Burq S, Reston M (2009) Hydro-acoustic remote sensing of benthic biological communities on the shallow South East Australian continental shelf. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 84:237–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2009.06.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rattray A, Ierodiaconou D, Monk J, Versace VL, Laurenson LJB (2013) Detecting patterns of change in benthic habitats by acoustic remote sensing. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 477:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rattray A, Ierodiaconou D, Monk J, Laurenson LJB, Kennedy P (2014) Quantification of spatial and thematic uncertainty in the application of underwater video for benthic habitat mapping. Mar Geodesy 37:315–336.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2013.877105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rattray A, Ierodiaconou D, Womersley T (2015) Wave exposure as a predictor of benthic habitat distribution on high energy temperate reefs. Front Mar Sci.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00008 Google Scholar
  58. Sandwell D, Gille S, Orcutt J, Smith W (2003) Bathymetry from space is now possible. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 84:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schimel A, Beaudoin J, Gaillot A, Keith G, Le Bas T, Parnum I, V. S (2015a) Chapter 6 processing backscatter data: from datagrams to angular responses and mosaics. In: Lurton X, Lamarche G (eds) Backscatter measurements by seafloor-mapping sonars. Guidelines and Recommendations. p 200Google Scholar
  60. Schimel ACG, Ierodiaconou D, Hulands L, Kennedy DM (2015b) Accounting for uncertainty in volumes of seabed change measured with repeat multibeam sonar surveys. Cont Shelf Res 111:52–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2015.10.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmidt J, Evans IS, Brinkmann J (2003) Comparison of polynomial models for land surface curvature calculation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 17:797–814.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810310001596058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strobl C, Boulesteix AL, Augustin T (2006) Unbiased split selection for classification trees based on the gini index. Comput Stati Data Anal 52:483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vanbelle S, Albert A (2008) A bootstrap method for comparing correlated kappa coefficients. J Stat Comput Simul 78:1009–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00949650701410249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wernberg T et al (2016) Climate-driven regime shift of a temperate marine ecosystem. Science 353:169–172.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson MFJ, O’Connell B, Brown C, Guinan JC, Grehan AJ (2007) Multiscale terrain analysis of multibeam bathymetry data for habitat mapping on the continental Slope. Mar Geodesy 30:3–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01490410701295962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wright D (2003) Undersea with GIS. ESRI Press, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  67. Young M, Ierodiaconou D, Womersley T (2015) Forests of the sea: predictive habitat modelling to assess the abundance of canopy forming kelp forests on temperate reefs. Remote Sens Environ 170:178–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.09.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin University, Centre for Integrative Ecology (Warrnambool Campus)WarrnamboolAustralia
  2. 2.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Taihoro NukurangiWellingtonNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of GeographyThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Institute of Marine and Antarctic StudiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  5. 5.Geological Survey of NorwayTrondheimNorway
  6. 6.Centre for EnvironmentFisheries and Aquaculture ScienceLowestoftUK

Personalised recommendations