| Literature DB >> 31100805 |
Federica Foglini1, Valentina Grande2, Fabio Marchese3, Valentina A Bracchi4, Mariacristina Prampolini5, Lorenzo Angeletti6, Giorgio Castellan7,8, Giovanni Chimienti9, Ingrid M Hansen10, Magne Gudmundsen11, Agostino N Meroni12, Alessandra Mercorella13, Agostina Vertino14,15, Fabio Badalamenti16, Cesare Corselli17, Ivar Erdal18, Eleonora Martorelli19, Alessandra Savini20, Marco Taviani21,22,23.
Abstract
Hyperspectral imagers enable the collection of high-resolution spectral images exploitable for the supervised classification of habitats and objects of interest (OOI). Although this is a well-established technology for the study of subaerial environments, Ecotone AS has developed an underwater hyperspectral imager (UHI) system to explore the properties of the seafloor. The aim of the project is to evaluate the potential of this instrument for mapping and monitoring benthic habitats in shallow and deep-water environments. For the first time, we tested this system at two sites in the Southern Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean Sea): the cold-water coral (CWC) habitat in the Bari Canyon and the Coralligenous habitat off Brindisi. We created a spectral library for each site, considering the different substrates and the main OOI reaching, where possible, the lower taxonomic rank. We applied the spectral angle mapper (SAM) supervised classification to map the areal extent of the Coralligenous and to recognize the major CWC habitat-formers. Despite some technical problems, the first results demonstrate the suitability of the UHI camera for habitat mapping and seabed monitoring, through the achievement of quantifiable and repeatable classifications.Entities:
Keywords: Adriatic Sea; cold-water coral; coralligenous; habitat mapping; hyperspectral camera; spectral library
Year: 2019 PMID: 31100805 PMCID: PMC6567330 DOI: 10.3390/s19102261
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(A) Location of the two sites, inset shows the position in the Mediterranean Sea; (B) the extension of the Bari Canyon CWC province (from [56]) and (C) the extension of the coralligenous in the Brindisi area (black lines indicate the ROV surveys). Habitat maps produced by the BIOMAP project and further updated within the CoCoNet project. (D) Example of CWC habitat complexity showing colonies of M. oculata and large fan-shaped sponges (from [38]); (E) example of coralligenous characterized by CCA and Peyssonelliales, serpulids and orange encrusting sponges overprinting the calcified red algae.
Selected ROIs for the benthic classes of the CWC site and relative threshold values used in the ‘Rule classifier’ tool.
| Benthic Class | Colonial Cnidarian | Sponge | Mud | Bedrock | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROI | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| 0.035 | 0.025 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.045 | 0.035 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
Selected ROIs for the benthic classes of the coralligenous site and relative threshold values used in the ‘Rule classifier’ tool.
| Benthic Class | CCA+P | Green Algae | Seagrass | Associated Organism | Sand | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROI | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | Sponge 1 | Sponge 2 | Serpulids | Red Starfish | Red Ascidia | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.2 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.065 | 0.045 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.2 |
Figure 2Mean spectra of the ROIs for the CWC site. R is the reflectance and W the wavelength. In A, B, C, D and E, dashed lines represent the standard deviation. F shows the synthesis of all spectra.
Figure 3Mean spectra based on the ROIs relative to the coralligenous site. The dashed line in the graphs represents the standard deviation. K shows the synthesis of all spectra.
Figure 4RGB UHI image of the CWC site in A and its SAM classification in B.
Figure 5RGB UHI image of the coralligenous site in A and its SAM classification in B.
Confusion Matrix for the CWC site classification.
| Overall Accuracy 84.38% | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mud | Sponge | Bedrock | C. cnidarian | TOT | UA | |
| Mud | 7 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
|
| Sponge | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
|
| Bedrock | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 8 |
|
| C. cnidarian | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
|
| TOT | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 32 | |
| PA |
|
|
|
| ||
Confusion Matrix for the coralligenous site classification.
| Overall Accuracy 72% | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serpulids |
|
| CCA+P | Green Algae 3 | Sand |
| Green Algae 1+2 | TOT | UA | |||
| Serpulids | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
|
|
| 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| |
| CCA+P | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
|
| Green algae 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
|
| Sand | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 15 |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
|
| Green algae 1+2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 9 |
|
| TOT | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 80 | |
| PA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Figure 6Zoom in the classified segment of coralligenous site, where numbers indicate the organism identified (A) and classified (B): 1. C. bursa, 2. H. papillosa, 3. Axinella sp. 1, 4. E. sepositus, 5. C. prolifera, 6. P. oceanica, 7. Serpulids. For the colour legend in B, see Figure 5.
Figure 7Comparison between the ROV transect classified with conventional methodologies (A and B insert) and the UHI classification for (A) CWC and (B) coralligenous sites. The image shows the higher level of detailed obtained by the UHI camera, in contrast with the larger amount of data analyzed by the ROV video.