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 was established to train the software for automatic recognition. Using the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Plankton Research
Main Authors: Bell, Jenefer, Hopcroft, Russell R.
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 2008
Subjects:
Online Access:http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/fbn092v1
https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092
id fthighwire:oai:open-archive.highwire.org:plankt:fbn092v1
record_format openpolar
spelling fthighwire:oai:open-archive.highwire.org:plankt:fbn092v1 2023-05-15T18:48:56+02:00 Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton Bell, Jenefer Hopcroft, Russell R. 2008-09-15 04:59:48.0 text/html http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/fbn092v1 https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092 en eng Oxford University Press http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/fbn092v1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092 Copyright (C) 2008, Oxford University Press Article TEXT 2008 fthighwire https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092 2016-11-16T18:35:41Z 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 was 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, fibers) were removed from total particles. Because copepods were the numerically dominant organisms in most samples, they 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 Article
spellingShingle Article
Bell, Jenefer
Hopcroft, Russell R.
Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
topic_facet Article
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 was 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, fibers) were removed from total particles. Because copepods were the numerically dominant organisms in most samples, they 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
Hopcroft, Russell R.
author_facet Bell, Jenefer
Hopcroft, Russell R.
author_sort Bell, Jenefer
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/fbn092v1
https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbn092
genre Alaska
Copepods
genre_facet Alaska
Copepods
op_relation http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/fbn092v1
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_ 1766242311975469056