Calculating macroalgal height and biomass using bathymetric LiDAR and a comparison with surface area derived from satellite data in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability to map and monitor the macroalgal coastal resource is important to both the industry and the regulator. This study evaluates topo-bathymetric lidar (light detection and ranging) as a tool for estimating the surface area, height and biomass of Ascophyllum nodosum , an anchored and vertically suspended (floating) macroalga, and compares the surface area derived from lidar and WorldView-2 satellite imagery. Pixel-based Maximum Likelihood classification of low tide satellite data produced 2-dimensional maps of intertidal macroalgae with overall accuracy greater than 80%. Low tide and high tide topo-bathymetric lidar surveys were completed in southwestern Nova Scotia, Canada. Comparison of lidar-derived seabed elevations with ground-truth data collected using a survey grade global navigation satellite system (GNSS) indicated the low tide survey data have a positive bias of 15 cm, likely resulting from the seaweed being draped over the surface. The high tide survey data did not exhibit this bias, although the suspended canopy floating on the water surface reduced the seabed lidar point density. Validation of lidar-derived seaweed heights indicated a mean difference of 30 cm with a root mean square error of 62 cm. The modelled surface area of seaweed was 28% greater in the lidar model than the satellite model. The average lidar-derived biomass estimate was within one standard deviation of the mean biomass measured in the field. The lidar method tends to overestimate the biomass compared to field measurements that were spatially biased to the mid-intertidal level. This study demonstrates an innovative and cost-effective approach that uses a single high tide bathymetric lidar survey to map the height and biomass of dense macroalgae.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".