Mapping seabed biotopes at two spatial scales in the eastern English Channel. Part 2. Comparison of two acoustic ground discrimination systems
Spatial surveys of marine benthic habitats and biota based on the interpretation of acoustic data were carried out at two sites in the eastern English Channel each representing different scales of geographic area and intensity of survey. A small area (4×12 km) crossing the Hastings Shingle Bank was...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2004-06, Vol.84 (3), p.489-500 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 500 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 489 |
container_title | Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom |
container_volume | 84 |
creator | Foster-Smith, Robert L. Brown, Craig J. Meadows, William J. White, William H. Limpenny, David S. |
description | Spatial surveys of marine benthic habitats and biota based on the interpretation of acoustic data were carried out at two sites in the eastern English Channel each representing different scales of geographic area and intensity of survey. A small area (4×12 km) crossing the Hastings Shingle Bank was surveyed at a relatively high intensity (track spacing 400 m) and was nested within a larger area between Hastings and Dungeness (12×40 km), which was surveyed at a lower intensity (track spacing 2 km). Surveys were conducted with two acoustic ground discrimination systems (AGDS), RoxAnn and QTC-VIEW and the primary purpose of the investigation was to compare the performance of the two AGDS using a common approach to analysis of the different data outputs (E1 and E2 for RoxAnn and the Q eigenvectors from QTC-VIEW). Exploratory data analysis using variography indicated that interpolation between tracks was justified for the smaller site to create a complete coverage, but was limited to the creation of a digital image of the track data for the larger area. Grab and video sample data were available for supervised classification of the AGDS data and interpreted sidescan images for comparison with unsupervised classification. Both AGDS gave similar outputs, although RoxAnn consistently gave slightly better levels of performance than QTC-VIEW as measured using error matrices. Although the investigation was not designed to compare the performance of AGDS and sidescan, the outputs from AGDS were similar to the visual interpretation of the sidescan sonar data. It was concluded that despite the inherent limitations of AGDS, they may be suitable for providing distribution maps at a broad scale that can give a context for the interpretation of finer scale survey of smaller, nested areas. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0025315404009506h |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19395760</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0025315404009506h</cupid><sourcerecordid>18065895</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-27b68567a5e9e94bb69aa338f00acba4c85c63a413ad6eee2ba8ea6bc68b85ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkd1u1DAQhSMEEkvhBbiykOAui5P4L5doW5ZCEX9FXFoTZ7LrkrWD7RXtS_DMOOyKSiDBlSXPN0dnzimKxxVdVrSSzz9RWvOm4owySltOxfZOsaiYaEspRXu3WMzzcgbuFw9ivKKUVkKqRfHjLUyTdRsSETrsSWd98hNGAomk757ECZKFkUQDY_61jqQtEoSYMDhy5jajjVuy2oJzOC7JewiJ1Euy8rsJgo3eET_8EgLj9zFZQzbB711PehtNsDvrsn6m4k1W3MWHxb0BxoiPju9J8fnl2eXqVXnxbn2-enFRGsZkKmvZCcWFBI4ttqzrRAvQNGqgFEwHzChuRAOsaqAXiFh3oBBEZ4TqFMehOSmeHXSn4L_tMSa9y35wHMFh9qmrtmm5FPT_oKKCq5Zn8Mkf4JXfB5eP0HXNcvCSywzVB8gEH2PAQU85Awg3uqJ6LlL_XWReenpUhrmFIYAzNt5ucsW5amar5YGzOcrr33MIX7WQjeRarD_oy_VH_ub1l1N9mnl2NAO7Lth-g7eW_2HnJ-auvqE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>224154757</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mapping seabed biotopes at two spatial scales in the eastern English Channel. Part 2. Comparison of two acoustic ground discrimination systems</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Foster-Smith, Robert L. ; Brown, Craig J. ; Meadows, William J. ; White, William H. ; Limpenny, David S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Foster-Smith, Robert L. ; Brown, Craig J. ; Meadows, William J. ; White, William H. ; Limpenny, David S.</creatorcontrib><description>Spatial surveys of marine benthic habitats and biota based on the interpretation of acoustic data were carried out at two sites in the eastern English Channel each representing different scales of geographic area and intensity of survey. A small area (4×12 km) crossing the Hastings Shingle Bank was surveyed at a relatively high intensity (track spacing 400 m) and was nested within a larger area between Hastings and Dungeness (12×40 km), which was surveyed at a lower intensity (track spacing 2 km). Surveys were conducted with two acoustic ground discrimination systems (AGDS), RoxAnn and QTC-VIEW and the primary purpose of the investigation was to compare the performance of the two AGDS using a common approach to analysis of the different data outputs (E1 and E2 for RoxAnn and the Q eigenvectors from QTC-VIEW). Exploratory data analysis using variography indicated that interpolation between tracks was justified for the smaller site to create a complete coverage, but was limited to the creation of a digital image of the track data for the larger area. Grab and video sample data were available for supervised classification of the AGDS data and interpreted sidescan images for comparison with unsupervised classification. Both AGDS gave similar outputs, although RoxAnn consistently gave slightly better levels of performance than QTC-VIEW as measured using error matrices. Although the investigation was not designed to compare the performance of AGDS and sidescan, the outputs from AGDS were similar to the visual interpretation of the sidescan sonar data. It was concluded that despite the inherent limitations of AGDS, they may be suitable for providing distribution maps at a broad scale that can give a context for the interpretation of finer scale survey of smaller, nested areas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-3154</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-7769</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0025315404009506h</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMBAAK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Acoustics ; Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biota ; Biotopes ; Eigenvectors ; Fisheries ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects. Techniques ; Habitats ; Marine ; Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...) ; Ocean floor ; Polls & surveys ; Research Article ; Sea water ecosystems ; Sediments ; Software ; Synecology</subject><ispartof>Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2004-06, Vol.84 (3), p.489-500</ispartof><rights>2004 Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom</rights><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-27b68567a5e9e94bb69aa338f00acba4c85c63a413ad6eee2ba8ea6bc68b85ef3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0025315404009506/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,777,781,27906,27907,55610</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15855830$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Foster-Smith, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Craig J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meadows, William J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, William H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Limpenny, David S.</creatorcontrib><title>Mapping seabed biotopes at two spatial scales in the eastern English Channel. Part 2. Comparison of two acoustic ground discrimination systems</title><title>Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom</title><addtitle>J. Mar. Biol. Ass</addtitle><description>Spatial surveys of marine benthic habitats and biota based on the interpretation of acoustic data were carried out at two sites in the eastern English Channel each representing different scales of geographic area and intensity of survey. A small area (4×12 km) crossing the Hastings Shingle Bank was surveyed at a relatively high intensity (track spacing 400 m) and was nested within a larger area between Hastings and Dungeness (12×40 km), which was surveyed at a lower intensity (track spacing 2 km). Surveys were conducted with two acoustic ground discrimination systems (AGDS), RoxAnn and QTC-VIEW and the primary purpose of the investigation was to compare the performance of the two AGDS using a common approach to analysis of the different data outputs (E1 and E2 for RoxAnn and the Q eigenvectors from QTC-VIEW). Exploratory data analysis using variography indicated that interpolation between tracks was justified for the smaller site to create a complete coverage, but was limited to the creation of a digital image of the track data for the larger area. Grab and video sample data were available for supervised classification of the AGDS data and interpreted sidescan images for comparison with unsupervised classification. Both AGDS gave similar outputs, although RoxAnn consistently gave slightly better levels of performance than QTC-VIEW as measured using error matrices. Although the investigation was not designed to compare the performance of AGDS and sidescan, the outputs from AGDS were similar to the visual interpretation of the sidescan sonar data. It was concluded that despite the inherent limitations of AGDS, they may be suitable for providing distribution maps at a broad scale that can give a context for the interpretation of finer scale survey of smaller, nested areas.</description><subject>Acoustics</subject><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biota</subject><subject>Biotopes</subject><subject>Eigenvectors</subject><subject>Fisheries</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects. Techniques</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...)</subject><subject>Ocean floor</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Research Article</subject><subject>Sea water ecosystems</subject><subject>Sediments</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><issn>0025-3154</issn><issn>1469-7769</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkd1u1DAQhSMEEkvhBbiykOAui5P4L5doW5ZCEX9FXFoTZ7LrkrWD7RXtS_DMOOyKSiDBlSXPN0dnzimKxxVdVrSSzz9RWvOm4owySltOxfZOsaiYaEspRXu3WMzzcgbuFw9ivKKUVkKqRfHjLUyTdRsSETrsSWd98hNGAomk757ECZKFkUQDY_61jqQtEoSYMDhy5jajjVuy2oJzOC7JewiJ1Euy8rsJgo3eET_8EgLj9zFZQzbB711PehtNsDvrsn6m4k1W3MWHxb0BxoiPju9J8fnl2eXqVXnxbn2-enFRGsZkKmvZCcWFBI4ttqzrRAvQNGqgFEwHzChuRAOsaqAXiFh3oBBEZ4TqFMehOSmeHXSn4L_tMSa9y35wHMFh9qmrtmm5FPT_oKKCq5Zn8Mkf4JXfB5eP0HXNcvCSywzVB8gEH2PAQU85Awg3uqJ6LlL_XWReenpUhrmFIYAzNt5ucsW5amar5YGzOcrr33MIX7WQjeRarD_oy_VH_ub1l1N9mnl2NAO7Lth-g7eW_2HnJ-auvqE</recordid><startdate>20040601</startdate><enddate>20040601</enddate><creator>Foster-Smith, Robert L.</creator><creator>Brown, Craig J.</creator><creator>Meadows, William J.</creator><creator>White, William H.</creator><creator>Limpenny, David S.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040601</creationdate><title>Mapping seabed biotopes at two spatial scales in the eastern English Channel. Part 2. Comparison of two acoustic ground discrimination systems</title><author>Foster-Smith, Robert L. ; Brown, Craig J. ; Meadows, William J. ; White, William H. ; Limpenny, David S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-27b68567a5e9e94bb69aa338f00acba4c85c63a413ad6eee2ba8ea6bc68b85ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Acoustics</topic><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biota</topic><topic>Biotopes</topic><topic>Eigenvectors</topic><topic>Fisheries</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects. Techniques</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...)</topic><topic>Ocean floor</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Research Article</topic><topic>Sea water ecosystems</topic><topic>Sediments</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Foster-Smith, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Craig J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meadows, William J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, William H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Limpenny, David S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Foster-Smith, Robert L.</au><au>Brown, Craig J.</au><au>Meadows, William J.</au><au>White, William H.</au><au>Limpenny, David S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mapping seabed biotopes at two spatial scales in the eastern English Channel. Part 2. Comparison of two acoustic ground discrimination systems</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom</jtitle><addtitle>J. Mar. Biol. Ass</addtitle><date>2004-06-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>489</spage><epage>500</epage><pages>489-500</pages><issn>0025-3154</issn><eissn>1469-7769</eissn><coden>JMBAAK</coden><abstract>Spatial surveys of marine benthic habitats and biota based on the interpretation of acoustic data were carried out at two sites in the eastern English Channel each representing different scales of geographic area and intensity of survey. A small area (4×12 km) crossing the Hastings Shingle Bank was surveyed at a relatively high intensity (track spacing 400 m) and was nested within a larger area between Hastings and Dungeness (12×40 km), which was surveyed at a lower intensity (track spacing 2 km). Surveys were conducted with two acoustic ground discrimination systems (AGDS), RoxAnn and QTC-VIEW and the primary purpose of the investigation was to compare the performance of the two AGDS using a common approach to analysis of the different data outputs (E1 and E2 for RoxAnn and the Q eigenvectors from QTC-VIEW). Exploratory data analysis using variography indicated that interpolation between tracks was justified for the smaller site to create a complete coverage, but was limited to the creation of a digital image of the track data for the larger area. Grab and video sample data were available for supervised classification of the AGDS data and interpreted sidescan images for comparison with unsupervised classification. Both AGDS gave similar outputs, although RoxAnn consistently gave slightly better levels of performance than QTC-VIEW as measured using error matrices. Although the investigation was not designed to compare the performance of AGDS and sidescan, the outputs from AGDS were similar to the visual interpretation of the sidescan sonar data. It was concluded that despite the inherent limitations of AGDS, they may be suitable for providing distribution maps at a broad scale that can give a context for the interpretation of finer scale survey of smaller, nested areas.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0025315404009506h</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0025-3154 |
ispartof | Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2004-06, Vol.84 (3), p.489-500 |
issn | 0025-3154 1469-7769 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19395760 |
source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Acoustics Animal and plant ecology Animal, plant and microbial ecology Biological and medical sciences Biota Biotopes Eigenvectors Fisheries Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects. Techniques Habitats Marine Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...) Ocean floor Polls & surveys Research Article Sea water ecosystems Sediments Software Synecology |
title | Mapping seabed biotopes at two spatial scales in the eastern English Channel. Part 2. Comparison of two acoustic ground discrimination systems |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T10%3A29%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mapping%20seabed%20biotopes%20at%20two%20spatial%20scales%20in%20the%20eastern%20English%20Channel.%20Part%202.%20Comparison%20of%20two%20acoustic%20ground%20discrimination%20systems&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20Marine%20Biological%20Association%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom&rft.au=Foster-Smith,%20Robert%20L.&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=489&rft.epage=500&rft.pages=489-500&rft.issn=0025-3154&rft.eissn=1469-7769&rft.coden=JMBAAK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0025315404009506h&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E18065895%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=224154757&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0025315404009506h&rfr_iscdi=true |