Literature DB >> 34714844

Comprehensive marine substrate classification applied to Canada's Pacific shelf.

Edward J Gregr1,2, Dana R Haggarty3,4, Sarah C Davies3, Cole Fields5, Joanne Lessard3.   

Abstract

Maps of bottom type are essential to the management of marine resources and biodiversity because of their foundational role in characterizing species' habitats. They are also urgently needed as countries work to define marine protected areas. Current approaches are time consuming, focus largely on grain size, and tend to overlook shallow waters. Our random forest classification of almost 200,000 observations of bottom type is a timely alternative, providing maps of coastal substrate at a combination of resolution and extents not previously achieved. We correlated the observations with depth, depth-derivatives, and estimates of energy to predict marine substrate at 100 m resolution for Canada's Pacific shelf, a study area of over 135,000 km2. We built five regional models with the same data at 20 m resolution. In addition to standard tests of model fit, we used three independent data sets to test model predictions. We also tested for regional, depth, and resolution effects. We guided our analysis by asking: 1) does weighting for prevalence improve model predictions? 2) does model resolution influence model performance? And 3) is model performance influenced by depth? All our models fit the build data well with true skill statistic (TSS) scores ranging from 0.56 to 0.64. Weighting models with class prevalence improved fit and the correspondence with known spatial features. Class-based metrics showed differences across both resolutions and spatial regions, indicating non-stationarity across these spatial categories. Predictive power was lower (TSS from 0.10 to 0.36) based on independent data evaluation. Model performance was also a function of depth and resolution, illustrating the challenge of accurately representing heterogeneity. Our work shows the value of regional analyses to assessing model stationarity and how independent data evaluation and the use of error metrics can improve understanding of model performance and sampling bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34714844      PMCID: PMC8555849          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  10 in total

1.  Heavy use of equations impedes communication among biologists.

Authors:  Tim W Fawcett; Andrew D Higginson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Random forests for classification in ecology.

Authors:  D Richard Cutler; Thomas C Edwards; Karen H Beard; Adele Cutler; Kyle T Hess; Jacob Gibson; Joshua J Lawler
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.499

3.  The numerical measure of the success of predictions.

Authors:  C S Peirce
Journal:  Science       Date:  1884-11-14       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Outstanding Challenges in the Transferability of Ecological Models.

Authors:  Katherine L Yates; Phil J Bouchet; M Julian Caley; Kerrie Mengersen; Christophe F Randin; Stephen Parnell; Alan H Fielding; Andrew J Bamford; Stephen Ban; A Márcia Barbosa; Carsten F Dormann; Jane Elith; Clare B Embling; Gary N Ervin; Rebecca Fisher; Susan Gould; Roland F Graf; Edward J Gregr; Patrick N Halpin; Risto K Heikkinen; Stefan Heinänen; Alice R Jones; Periyadan K Krishnakumar; Valentina Lauria; Hector Lozano-Montes; Laura Mannocci; Camille Mellin; Mohsen B Mesgaran; Elena Moreno-Amat; Sophie Mormede; Emilie Novaczek; Steffen Oppel; Guillermo Ortuño Crespo; A Townsend Peterson; Giovanni Rapacciuolo; Jason J Roberts; Rebecca E Ross; Kylie L Scales; David Schoeman; Paul Snelgrove; Göran Sundblad; Wilfried Thuiller; Leigh G Torres; Heroen Verbruggen; Lifei Wang; Seth Wenger; Mark J Whittingham; Yuri Zharikov; Damaris Zurell; Ana M M Sequeira
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 17.712

5.  Towards Quantitative Spatial Models of Seabed Sediment Composition.

Authors:  David Stephens; Markus Diesing
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments.

Authors:  Miguel B Araújo; Robert P Anderson; A Márcia Barbosa; Colin M Beale; Carsten F Dormann; Regan Early; Raquel A Garcia; Antoine Guisan; Luigi Maiorano; Babak Naimi; Robert B O'Hara; Niklaus E Zimmermann; Carsten Rahbek
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 14.136

7.  Mapping Habitats and Developing Baselines in Offshore Marine Reserves with Little Prior Knowledge: A Critical Evaluation of a New Approach.

Authors:  Emma Lawrence; Keith R Hayes; Vanessa L Lucieer; Scott L Nichol; Jeffrey M Dambacher; Nicole A Hill; Neville Barrett; Johnathan Kool; Justy Siwabessy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A comparison of supervised classification methods for the prediction of substrate type using multibeam acoustic and legacy grain-size data.

Authors:  David Stephens; Markus Diesing
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A multiscale approach to mapping seabed sediments.

Authors:  Benjamin Misiuk; Vincent Lecours; Trevor Bell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.