| Literature DB >> 26207190 |
Jhr Burns1, D Delparte2, R D Gates3, M Takabayashi4.
Abstract
The structural complexity of coral reefs plays a major role in the biodiversity, productivity, and overall functionality of reef ecosystems. Conventional metrics with 2-dimensional properties are inadequate for characterization of reef structural complexity. A 3-dimensional (3D) approach can better quantify topography, rugosity and other structural characteristics that play an important role in the ecology of coral reef communities. Structure-from-Motion (SfM) is an emerging low-cost photogrammetric method for high-resolution 3D topographic reconstruction. This study utilized SfM 3D reconstruction software tools to create textured mesh models of a reef at French Frigate Shoals, an atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The reconstructed orthophoto and digital elevation model were then integrated with geospatial software in order to quantify metrics pertaining to 3D complexity. The resulting data provided high-resolution physical properties of coral colonies that were then combined with live cover to accurately characterize the reef as a living structure. The 3D reconstruction of reef structure and complexity can be integrated with other physiological and ecological parameters in future research to develop reliable ecosystem models and improve capacity to monitor changes in the health and function of coral reef ecosystems.Entities:
Keywords: 3D topographic reconstruction; Coral; Coral ecology; Coral reef; Habitat; Photogrammetry; Reef structural complexity; Structure-from-motion
Year: 2015 PMID: 26207190 PMCID: PMC4511817 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1077
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Primary steps of the SfM workflow for three-dimensional reconstruction of the benthic substrate.
(A) Divers collect imagery while swimming above the coral reef substrate in a boustrophedonical pattern to enable 70–80% overlap among all images. (B) Scale invariant features (“keypoints”) are identified and extracted from the overlapping images. These keypoints are then matched and aligned to develop a photo mosaic of the substrate. (C) SfM software performs bundle adjustments to determine camera positions and construct a 3D point cloud which is then; (D) processed with soft-copy triangulation to reconstruct the scene geometry and create a solid 3D mesh that can be; (E) shaded or; (F) textured using the high-resolution photographs. (G) Flowchart summarizing the primary components and considerations for each step of the technique presented in this study.
Figure 2Orthophotos and digital elevation models (DEMs) produced with SfM photogrammetry techniques.
(A) Orthophoto of the surveyed benthic habitat (28 × 6 m plot) at French Frigate Shoals provides a geometrically accurate image for annotation and topographic analyses. (B) Orthophoto with every coral colony individually annotated and symbolized to display the variability in surface complexity (3D/2D surface area). (C) DEM that represents percent slope of the surveyed habitat (maximum rate of change in value from one cell to its neighbors: tan θ∗100). (D) DEM representing elevational gradients throughout the surveyed habitat. (E) An example profile graph showing the DEM contour and the average Rugosity Index calculated from six profile graph permutations.
Figure 3Structural metrics compared among the coral species and two substrate types present in the surveyed habitat.
(A) Comparison of mean values (± S.E.) of combined (black), profile (white) and planform (grey) curvature among the benthic features. (B) Comparison of mean values (± S.E.) of percent slope among the benthic features. (C) Comparison of mean values (± S.E.) of surface complexity among the benthic features. α, β, and γ demark groupings identified as significantly different based on statistical analyses (ANOVA, p < 0.01).
Values of structural metrics compared among the coral species and two substrate types present at the French Frigate Shoals study site.
| Structural metrics | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benthic component | Mean surface complexity (±S.E.) | Percent cover | Mean percent slope (±S.E.) | Combined curvature (±S.E.) | Profile curvature (±S.E.) | Planform curvature (±S.E.) |
|
| 4.59 ± 0.68 | 0.32% | 3,614 ± 536 | 0.32 ± −0.09 | −0.41 ± 0.06 | −0.09 ± 0.05 |
|
| 1.71 ± .0.06 | 0.19% | 323.3 ± 42 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | −0.09 ± 0.01 | −0.02 ± 0.01 |
|
| 1.81 ± 0.13 | 0.11% | 546 ± 159 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | −0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.00 ± 0.02 |
|
| 3.02 ± 0.29 | 1.07% | 1,299 ± 182 | 0.12 ± 0.05 | −0.20 ± 0.03 | −0.08 ± 0.02 |
|
| 2.12 ± 0.04 | 10.96% | 733.7 ± 30.6 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | −0.19 ± 0.01 | −0.02 ± 0.00 |
|
| 2.30 ± 0.41 | 0.03% | 1,438 ± 744 | 0.42 ± 0.28 | −0.49 ± 0.17 | −0.08 ± 0.14 |
|
| 1.35 ± 0.05 | 74.75% | 568 ± 131 | −0.02 ± 0.02 | −0.03 ± 0.01 | −0.05 ± 0.01 |
|
| 1.29 ± 0.05 | 12.56% | 275.5 ± 68 | −0.02 ± 0.01 | −0.05 ± 0.01 | −0.06 ± 0.01 |