Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton

ZooImage, image analysis software, was evaluated to determine its ability to differentiate between zooplankton groups in preserved zooplankton samples collected in Prince William Sound, Alaska. A training set of 53 categories were established to train the software for automatic recognition. Using th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Plankton Research
Main Authors: Bell, Jenefer L., Hopcroft, Russell R.
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 2008
Subjects:
Online Access:http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/30/12/1351
https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092
id fthighwire:oai:open-archive.highwire.org:plankt:30/12/1351
record_format openpolar
spelling fthighwire:oai:open-archive.highwire.org:plankt:30/12/1351 2023-05-15T18:48:56+02:00 Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton Bell, Jenefer L. Hopcroft, Russell R. 2008-12-01 00:00:00.0 text/html http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/30/12/1351 https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092 en eng Oxford University Press http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/30/12/1351 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092 Copyright (C) 2008, Oxford University Press ORIGINAL ARTICLES TEXT 2008 fthighwire https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092 2013-05-26T18:07:34Z ZooImage, image analysis software, was evaluated to determine its ability to differentiate between zooplankton groups in preserved zooplankton samples collected in Prince William Sound, Alaska. A training set of 53 categories were established to train the software for automatic recognition. Using the Random forest algorithm, ZooImage identified particles in the training set with less than 13% error. Despite reasonable results with the training set, however, ZooImage was less effective when this training set was used to identify particles from field-collected zooplankton samples. When all particles were examined, ZooImage had an accuracy of 81.7% but this dropped to 63.3% when discard particles (e.g. marine snow and fibers) were removed from total particles. Copepods, the numerically dominant organisms in most samples, were examined separately and were correctly identified 67.8% of the time. Further investigation suggested size was effective in determining identifications; medium size copepods (e.g. Pseudocalanus sp., Acartia sp.) were accurately identified 73.3% of the time. ZooImage can provide a coarse level of taxonomic classification and we anticipate continued improvement to this software should further enhance automatic identification of preserved zooplankton samples. Text Alaska Copepods HighWire Press (Stanford University) Journal of Plankton Research 30 12 1351 1367
institution Open Polar
collection HighWire Press (Stanford University)
op_collection_id fthighwire
language English
topic ORIGINAL ARTICLES
spellingShingle ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Bell, Jenefer L.
Hopcroft, Russell R.
Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
topic_facet ORIGINAL ARTICLES
description ZooImage, image analysis software, was evaluated to determine its ability to differentiate between zooplankton groups in preserved zooplankton samples collected in Prince William Sound, Alaska. A training set of 53 categories were established to train the software for automatic recognition. Using the Random forest algorithm, ZooImage identified particles in the training set with less than 13% error. Despite reasonable results with the training set, however, ZooImage was less effective when this training set was used to identify particles from field-collected zooplankton samples. When all particles were examined, ZooImage had an accuracy of 81.7% but this dropped to 63.3% when discard particles (e.g. marine snow and fibers) were removed from total particles. Copepods, the numerically dominant organisms in most samples, were examined separately and were correctly identified 67.8% of the time. Further investigation suggested size was effective in determining identifications; medium size copepods (e.g. Pseudocalanus sp., Acartia sp.) were accurately identified 73.3% of the time. ZooImage can provide a coarse level of taxonomic classification and we anticipate continued improvement to this software should further enhance automatic identification of preserved zooplankton samples.
format Text
author Bell, Jenefer L.
Hopcroft, Russell R.
author_facet Bell, Jenefer L.
Hopcroft, Russell R.
author_sort Bell, Jenefer L.
title Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
title_short Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
title_full Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
title_fullStr Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
title_sort assessment of zooimage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
publisher Oxford University Press
publishDate 2008
url http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/30/12/1351
https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092
genre Alaska
Copepods
genre_facet Alaska
Copepods
op_relation http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/30/12/1351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092
op_rights Copyright (C) 2008, Oxford University Press
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092
container_title Journal of Plankton Research
container_volume 30
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1351
op_container_end_page 1367
_version_ 1766242304578813952