Mapping with confidence; delineating seagrass habitats using Unoccupied Aerial Systems (UAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is growing interest in the use of Unoccupied Aerial Systems ( UAS ) for mapping and monitoring of seagrass habitats. UAS provide flexibility with timing of imagery capture, are relatively inexpensive, and obtain very high spatial resolution imagery compared to imagery acquired from sensors mounted on satellite or piloted aircraft. However, research to date has focused on UAS applications for exposed intertidal areas or clear tropical waters. In contrast, submerged seagrass meadows in temperate regions are subject to high cloud cover and water column turbidity, which may limit the application of UAS imagery for coastal habitat mapping. To test the constraints on UAS seagrass mapping, we examined the effects of five environmental conditions at the time of UAS image acquisition (sun angle, tidal height, cloud cover, Secchi depth and wind speed) and five site characteristics (eelgrass patchiness and density, presence and density of non‐eelgrass submerged aquatic vegetation, sediment tone, eelgrass deep edge and site exposure) at 26 eelgrass ( Zostera marina ) monitoring sites in British Columbia, Canada. Eelgrass was delineated in UAS orthomosaics using object‐based image analysis, combining image segmentation with manual classification. Each site was ranked according to the analysts’ confidence in the delineated eelgrass. Robust Linear Regression revealed sun angle and ‘ theoretical visibility’ (an aggregate of tidal height, Secchi depth, and eelgrass deep edge conditions) to be the most important variables affecting mapping confidence. In general, ideal environmental conditions to obtain high confidence eelgrass mapping included: (1) sun angles below 40°; (2) positive theoretical visibility with Secchi depths >5 m; (3) cloud cover conditions of <10% or >90%; and (4) wind speeds less than 5 km h −1 . Additionally, high mapping confidence was achieved for sites with dense, continuous, and homogeneous eelgrass meadows. The results of this analysis will guide implementation of UAS mapping technologies in coastal temperate regions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".