Benthic habitat mapping: A review of progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using acoustic techniques

Brown, Craig J.; Smith, Stephen J.; Lawton, Peter; Anderson, John

doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2011.02.007

Cited by 511 publications

(409 citation statements)

References 182 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

404

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although much political and scientific emphasis has been given to the identification, mapping and ecological monitoring of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, difficulties such as the inaccessibility and the inherent biological complexity have resulted in significant knowledge and management gaps in marine ecosystems (Fraschetti et al, 2008;Brown et al, 2011). At the same time, increased competition for marine resources and human activities have caused the degradation of the quality status of the marine environment, thus inducing an urgent need for holistic, planned approaches to managing our seas (Fraschetti et al, 2008;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of goods and services, vulnerability, and conservation status of European seabed biotopes: a stepping stone towards ecosystem-based marine spatial management

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of ecosystem-based marine spatial management is to maintain marine ecosystems in a healthy, productive and resilient condition; hence, they can sustainably provide the needed goods and services for human welfare. However, the increasing pressures upon the marine realm threaten marine ecosystems, especially seabed biotopes, and thus a well-planned approach of managing use of marine space is essential to achieve sustainability. The relative value of seabed biotopes, evaluated on the basis of goods and services, is an important starting point for the spatial management of marine areas. Herein, 56 types of European seabed biotopes and their related goods, services, sensitivity issues, and conservation status were compiled, the latter referring to management and protection tools which currently apply for these biotopes at European or international level. Fishing activities, especially by benthic trawls, and marine pollution are the main threats to European seabed biotopes. Increased seawater turbidity, dredged sediment disposal, coastal constructions, biological invasions, mining, extraction of raw materials, shipping-related activities, tourism, hydrocarbon exploration, and even some practices of scientific research, also exert substantial pressure. Although some first steps have been taken to protect the European sea beds through international agreements and European and national legislation, a finer scale of classification and assessment of marine biotopes is considered crucial in shaping sound priorities and management guidelines towards the effective conservation and sustainability of European marine resources.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of goods and services, vulnerability, and conservation status of European seabed biotopes: a stepping stone towards ecosystem-based marine spatial management

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the remainder of this paper, I use the term "habitat maps" to encompass all types of static maps and models that represent some characteristic of the marine environment. Following the definitions by Brown et al (2011), those include abiotic maps used to characterize distinct physical potential habitats, and single species and community habitat maps (including but not limited to species distribution models).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Lecours

2017

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation planning and management typically require accurate and spatially explicit data at scales that are relevant for conservation objectives. In marine conservation, these data are often combined with spatial analytical techniques to produce marine habitat maps. While marine habitat mapping is increasingly used to inform conservation efforts, this field is still relatively young and its methods are rapidly evolving. Because conservation efforts do not always specify standards or guidelines for the production of habitat maps, results can vary dramatically. As representations of real environmental characteristics, habitat maps are highly sensitive to how they are produced. In this review paper, I present four concepts that are known to cause variation in spatial representation and prediction of habitats: the methodology used, the quality and scale of the data, and the choice of variables in regards to fitness for use. I then discuss the potential antinomy associated with the use of habitat maps in conservation: while habitat maps have become an invaluable tool to inform and assist decision-making, maps of the same area built using different methods and data may provide dissimilar representations, thus providing different information and possibly leading to different decisions. Exploring the theories and methods that have proved effective in terrestrial conservation and the spatial sciences, and how they can be integrated in marine habitat mapping practices, could help improve maps used to support marine conservation efforts and result in more reliable products to inform conservation decisions. Having a strong, consistent, transparent, repeatable, and science-based protocol for data collection and mapping is essential for effectively supporting decision-makers in developing conservation and management plans. The development of user-friendly tools to assist in the application of such protocol is crucial to a widespread improvement in practices. I discuss the potential to use interactive and collaborative Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to encourage the conservation and management community, from data collectors and mapmakers to decision-makers, to move toward a digital resilience and to develop such science-based protocol. Until standards and protocols are developed, habitat maps should always be interpreted with care, and the methods and metadata associated with their production should always be explicitly stated.

show abstract

“…backscatter mosaic). As a result, different classification methods have been established for each dataset (Brown et al, 2011a). The raw MBES backscatter data were processed in Fledermaus Geocoder Toolbox software version 7.4 (FMGT) to obtain (a) backscatter mosaic, and (b) prediction of sediment types using Angular Range Analysis (ARA) technique (Fonseca and Mayer 2007).…”

Section: Acoustic Data Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Multibeam Backscatter Texture Analysis for Seafloor Sediment Classification

Samsudin

Hasan

2017

Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Recently, there have been many debates to analyse backscatter data from multibeam echosounder system (MBES) for seafloor classifications. Among them, two common methods have been used lately for seafloor classification; (1) signal-based classification method which using Angular Range Analysis (ARA) and Image-based texture classification method which based on derived Grey Level Co-occurrence Matrices (GLCMs). Although ARA method could predict sediment types, its low spatial resolution limits its use with high spatial resolution dataset. Texture layers from GLCM on the other hand does not predict sediment types, but its high spatial resolution can be useful for image analysis. The objectives of this study are; (1) to investigate the correlation between MBES derived backscatter mosaic textures with seafloor sediment type derived from ARA method, and (2) to identify which GLCM texture layers have high similarities with sediment classification map derived from signal-based classification method. The study area was located at Tawau, covers an area of 4.7km2, situated off the channel in the Celebes Sea between Nunukan Island and Sebatik Island, East Malaysia. First, GLCM layers were derived from backscatter mosaic while sediment types (i.e. sediment map with classes) was also constructed using ARA method. Secondly, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used determine which GLCM layers contribute most to the variance (i.e. important layers). Finally, K-Means clustering algorithm was applied to the important GLCM layers and the results were compared with classes from ARA. From the results, PCA has identified that GLCM layers of Correlation, Entropy, Contrast and Mean contributed to the 98.77% of total variance. Among these layers, GLCM Mean showed a good agreement with sediment classes from ARA sediment map. This study has demonstrated different texture layers have different characterisation factors for sediment classification and proper analysis is needed before using these layers with any classification technique.

show abstract

Benthic habitat mapping: A review of progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using acoustic techniques

Cited by 511 publications

References 182 publications

Assessment of goods and services, vulnerability, and conservation status of European seabed biotopes: a stepping stone towards ecosystem-based marine spatial management

Assessment of goods and services, vulnerability, and conservation status of European seabed biotopes: a stepping stone towards ecosystem-based marine spatial management

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Assessment of Multibeam Backscatter Texture Analysis for Seafloor Sediment Classification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About