Emma J. Curtis , Jennifer M. Durden , Brian J. Bett , Veerle A.I. Huvenne , Nils Piechaud , Jenny Walker , James Albrecht , Miquel Massot-Campos , Takaki Yamada , Adrian Bodenmann , Jose Cappelletto , James A. Strong , Blair Thornton
{"title":"Improving coral monitoring by reducing variability and bias in cover estimates from seabed images","authors":"Emma J. Curtis , Jennifer M. Durden , Brian J. Bett , Veerle A.I. Huvenne , Nils Piechaud , Jenny Walker , James Albrecht , Miquel Massot-Campos , Takaki Yamada , Adrian Bodenmann , Jose Cappelletto , James A. Strong , Blair Thornton","doi":"10.1016/j.pocean.2024.103214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Seabed cover of organisms is an established metric for assessing the status of many vulnerable marine ecosystems. When deriving cover estimates from seafloor imagery, a source of uncertainty in capturing the true distribution of organisms is introduced by the inherent variability and bias of the annotation method used to extract ecological data. We investigated variability and bias in two common annotation methods for estimating organism cover, and the role of size selectivity in this variability. Eleven annotators estimated sparse cold-water coral cover in the same 96 images with both grid-based and manual segmentation annotation methods. The standard deviation between annotators was three times greater in the grid-based method compared to segmentation, and grid-based estimates from annotators tended to overestimate coral cover. Size selectivity biased the manual segmentation; the minimum size of colonies segmented varied between annotators fivefold. Two modelling techniques (based on Richard’s selection curves and Gaussian processes) were used to impute areas where annotators identified colonies too small for segmentation. By imputing small coral sizes in segmentation estimates, the coefficient of variation between annotators was reduced by approximately 10%, and method bias (compared to a reference dataset) was reduced by up to 23%. Therefore, for sparse, low cover organisms, manual segmentation of images is recommended to minimise annotator variability and bias. Uncertainty in cover estimates may be further reduced by addressing size selectivity bias when annotating small organisms in images using a data-driven modelling technique.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20620,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Oceanography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Oceanography","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966112400020X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OCEANOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Seabed cover of organisms is an established metric for assessing the status of many vulnerable marine ecosystems. When deriving cover estimates from seafloor imagery, a source of uncertainty in capturing the true distribution of organisms is introduced by the inherent variability and bias of the annotation method used to extract ecological data. We investigated variability and bias in two common annotation methods for estimating organism cover, and the role of size selectivity in this variability. Eleven annotators estimated sparse cold-water coral cover in the same 96 images with both grid-based and manual segmentation annotation methods. The standard deviation between annotators was three times greater in the grid-based method compared to segmentation, and grid-based estimates from annotators tended to overestimate coral cover. Size selectivity biased the manual segmentation; the minimum size of colonies segmented varied between annotators fivefold. Two modelling techniques (based on Richard’s selection curves and Gaussian processes) were used to impute areas where annotators identified colonies too small for segmentation. By imputing small coral sizes in segmentation estimates, the coefficient of variation between annotators was reduced by approximately 10%, and method bias (compared to a reference dataset) was reduced by up to 23%. Therefore, for sparse, low cover organisms, manual segmentation of images is recommended to minimise annotator variability and bias. Uncertainty in cover estimates may be further reduced by addressing size selectivity bias when annotating small organisms in images using a data-driven modelling technique.
期刊介绍:
Progress in Oceanography publishes the longer, more comprehensive papers that most oceanographers feel are necessary, on occasion, to do justice to their work. Contributions are generally either a review of an aspect of oceanography or a treatise on an expanding oceanographic subject. The articles cover the entire spectrum of disciplines within the science of oceanography. Occasionally volumes are devoted to collections of papers and conference proceedings of exceptional interest. Essential reading for all oceanographers.