MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736827499

Mapping of eelgrass (Zostera marina) at Sidney Spit, Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada, using high spatial resolution remote imagery

2010· article· en· W2736827499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer O'Neill

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Systems Theory · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZostera marinaNational parkGeographyNature reserveNational nature reserveAerial imageryHigh resolutionOceanographyRemote sensingCartographySeagrassArchaeologyEcologyGeologyEcosystemBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of this thesis was to evaluate the use of high spatial remote imagery to map the location and biophysical parameters of eelgrass in marine areas around Sidney Spit, a part of the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada (GINPRC). To meet this goal, three objectives were addressed: (1) Define key spectral variables that provide optimum separation between eelgrass and its associated benthic substrates, using in situ hyperspectral measurements, and simulated IKONOS and Landsat 7ETM+ spectral response; (2) evaluate the efficacy of these key variables in classification of the high spatial resolution imagery, AISA and IKONOS, at various levels of processing, to determine the processing methodology that offers the highest eelgrass mapping accuracy; and (3) evaluate the potential of ―value-added‖ classification of two eelgrass biophysical indicators, LAI and epiphyte type. In situ hyperspectral measurements acquired at Sidney Spit in August 2008 provided four different data sets: above water spectra, below water spectral profiles, water-corrected spectra, and pure endmember spectra. In Chapter 3, these data sets were examined with first derivative analysis to determine the unique spectral variables of eelgrass and associated benthic substrates. The most effective variables in discriminating eelgrass from all other substrates were selected using data reduction statistics: M-statistic analysis and multiple discriminant analyses (MDA). These selected spectral variables enabled eelgrass classification accuracy of 98% when separating six classes on above water data: shallow (< 3 m deep) eelgrass, deep (> 3 m) eelgrass, shallow sand, deep sand, shallow green algae, and spectrally deep water. The variables were located mainly in the green wavelengths, where light penetrates to the greatest depth: the slope from 500 – 530 nm, and the first derivatives at 566 nm, 580 nm, and 602 nm. The same data were classified with 96% accuracy after correcting for the water column, using the ratios 566:600 and 566:710. The only source of confusion for all data sets was between green algae and eelgrass, presumably due to their similar pigment composition. IKONOS and Landsat 7ETM+ simulated datasets performed similarly well, with 92% and 94% eelgrass classification accuracy respectively. In Chapter 4, the efficacy of the selected features was tested in the classification of airborne hyperspectral AISA imagery and satellite platform multispectral IKONOS imagery, and compared with various other classifiers, both supervised and unsupervised: K-means, minimum distance (MD), linear spectral unmixing (LSU), and spectral angle mapper (SAM). The selected features achieved the highest eelgrass classification accuracies in the study, when combined with atmospheric correction, glint correction, and optically deep water masking. AISA achieved eelgrass producer and user accuracies of 85% in water shallower than 3 m, and 93% in deeper areas. IKONOS achieved 79% for shallow waters and 82% for deep waters. Endmember classification also showed accuracies over 84% and 71% in AISA and IKONOS imagery respectively. Again, the largest source of confusion was between eelgrass and green algae, as well as between exposed vegetation (sea asparagus and green algae) and exposed eelgrass. Incompatibilities of the automatable processing steps (Tafkaa, LSU and SAM) made automated mapping less accurate than supervised mapping, but suggestions are made toward improvement. The value-added classification of eelgrass LAI and epiphyte type produced poor results in all cases except one; epiphyte presence / absence could be delineated with 87% accuracy. Before applying the findings of this study, one must consider the spatial scale of the intended management goal and select imagery with suitable spatial resolution. Tidal variations, as well as seasonal variability in water conditions and eelgrass phenology must also be considered as they may affect classification accuracies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Systems TheorySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207