Optical Plankton Imaging and Analysis Systems for Ocean Observation

Digital images of suspended particles in aquatic systems can reveal abundances, size spectra, and biomass distributions of planktonic organisms and non-living particles. Modern imaging systems are capable of recording the contents of defined volumes of water at high rates. In response to the need to analyze large image datasets, image analysis software and hardware are emerging as powerful tools for identifying the contents of images. Morphology combined with intrinsic image features can be used to identify phytoplankton and zooplankton organisms to genus in many cases. Moreover, many harmful algal species can be tentatively identified by morphology, providing potential sentinel early-warning systems for harmful blooms in coastal waters. Systems could be imagined that would alert experts to the presence of unknown biodiversity, indicative of new or invasive species. Size spectra of non-living particles and marine snow can be used to calculate vertical flux of material in the oceans. Many towed, moored, and drifting imaging systems have been developed in recent years for these purposes. These sensor systems are relatively complex compared to many physical and chemical sensors. They have high power requirements for illumination light sources, optical detectors, and computation, and require high bandwidth and/or data storage for the digital images themselves. High-powered image analysis and classification algorithms are needed to convert the high volume of digital image data to significant knowledge about the distributions and size spectra of the particles/organisms. We believe this technology will be important for monitoring ocean health in the future, and significant development effort is needed to make these systems more practical and robust for the coming ocean observing systems. This has been the focus of a recently-formed SCOR (Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research) Working Group (WG 130). This white paper will describe the state-ofthe-art and indicate best avenues for rapid, efficient development of the technology with specific application for ocean observing.

[1]  Mohan M. Trivedi,et al.  REFLICS: Real-time flow imaging and classification system , 2000, Proceedings 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. ICPR-2000.

[2]  Xabier Irigoien,et al.  Modelling the influence of abiotic and biotic factors on plankton distribution in the Bay of Biscay, during three consecutive years (2004–06) , 2008 .

[3]  R. Olson,et al.  A submersible imaging‐in‐flow instrument to analyze nano‐and microplankton: Imaging FlowCytobot , 2007 .

[5]  P. Wiebe,et al.  From the Hensen net toward four-dimensional biological oceanography , 2003 .

[6]  Philippe Grosjean,et al.  Enumeration, measurement, and identification of net zooplankton samples using the ZOOSCAN digital imaging system , 2004 .

[7]  A. Solow,et al.  Estimating the taxonomic composition of a sample when individuals are classified with error , 2001 .

[8]  Jr Strickler,et al.  Matched spatial filters in long working distance microscopy of phase objects , 1999 .

[9]  M. Picheral,et al.  Vertical distribution of suspended aggregates determined by a new underwater video profiler , 1992 .

[10]  C. Pilskaln,et al.  High concentrations of marine snow and diatom algal mats in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre: Implications for carbon and nitrogen cycles in the oligotrophic ocean , 2005 .

[11]  C. Davis,et al.  Real-time observation of taxa-specific plankton distributions: an optical sampling method , 2004 .

[12]  Qiao Hu,et al.  Advances in Plankton Imaging Using Digital Holography , 2007 .

[13]  Robert J. Olson,et al.  Automated taxonomic classification of phytoplankton sampled with imaging‐in‐flow cytometry , 2007 .

[14]  Allen R. Hanson,et al.  Automatic In Situ Identification of Plankton , 2005, 2005 Seventh IEEE Workshops on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV/MOTION'05) - Volume 1.

[15]  P. Culverhouse,et al.  Do experts make mistakes? A comparison of human and machine identification of dinoflagellates , 2003 .

[16]  P. Utgoff,et al.  RAPID: Research on Automated Plankton Identification , 2007 .

[17]  C. Davis,et al.  A three‐axis fast‐tow digital Video Plankton Recorder for rapid surveys of plankton taxa and hydrography , 2005 .

[18]  H. Dam,et al.  Particle size spectra between 1 μm and 1 cm at Monterey Bay determined using multiple instruments , 1997 .

[19]  R. Hopcroft,et al.  Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton , 2008 .

[20]  J. A. Lozano,et al.  Optimizing the number of classes in automated zooplankton classification , 2009 .

[21]  Philippe Grosjean,et al.  Spring zooplankton distribution in the Bay of Biscay from 1998 to 2006 in relation with anchovy recruitment , 2008 .

[22]  Jennifer B. Paduan,et al.  Spatial and temporal dynamics in marine aggregate abundance, sinking rate and flux: Monterey Bay, central California , 1998 .

[23]  George A. Jackson,et al.  Assessing plankton and other particles in situ with the SOLOPC , 2008 .

[24]  Qiao Hu,et al.  Accurate automatic quantification of taxa-specific plankton abundance using dual classification with correction , 2006 .