Comparing Sentinel-2 and WorldView-3 Imagery for Coastal Bottom Habitat Mapping in Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satellite remote sensing is a valuable tool to map and monitor the distribution of marine macrophytes such as seagrass and seaweeds that perform many ecological functions and services in coastal habitats. Various satellites have been used to map the distribution of these coastal bottom habitat-forming species, with each sensor providing unique benefits. In this study, we first explored optimal methods to create bottom habitat maps using WorldView-3 satellite imagery. We secondly compared the WorldView-3 bottom habitat maps to previously produced Sentinel-2 maps in a temperate, optically complex environment in Nova Scotia, Canada to identify the top performing classification and the advantages and disadvantages of each sensor. Sentinel-2 provides a global, freely accessible dataset where four bands are available at a 10-m spatial resolution in the visible and near infrared spectrum. Conversely, WorldView-3 is a commercial satellite where eight bands are available at a 2-m spatial resolution in the visible and near infrared spectrum, but data catalogs are costly and limited in scope. Our optimal WorldView-3 workflow processed images from digital numbers to habitat classification maps, and included a semiautomatic stripe correction. Our comparison of bottom habitat maps explored the impact of improved WorldView-3 spatial resolution in isolation, and the combined advantage of both WorldView’s increased spatial and spectral resolution relative to Sentinel-2. We further explored the effect of tidal height on classification success, and relative changes in water clarity between images collected at different dates. As expected, both sensors are suitable for bottom habitat mapping. The value of WorldView-3 came from both its increased spatial and spectral resolution, particularly for fragmented vegetation, and the value of Sentinel-2 imagery comes from its global dataset that readily allows for large scale habitat mapping. Given the variation in scale, cost and resolution of the two sensors, we provide recommendations on their use for mapping and monitoring marine macrophyte habitat in Atlantic Canada, with potential applications to other coastal areas of the world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".