Enumeration, measurement, and identification of net zooplankton samples using the ZOOSCAN digital imaging system

Grosjean, P., Picheral, M., Warembourg, C., and Gorsky, G. 2004. Enumeration,measurement, and identification of net zooplankton samples using the ZOOSCAN digitalimaging system. e ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 518e525.Identifying and counting zooplankton are labour-intensive and time-consuming processesthat are still performed manually. However, a new system, known as ZOOSCAN, has beendesigned for counting zooplankton net samples. We describe image-processing and theresults of (semi)-automatic identification of taxa with various machine-learning methods.Each scan contains between 1500 and 2000 individuals !0.5 mm. We used two trainingsets of about 1000 objects each divided into 8 (simplified) and 29 groups (detailed),respectively. The new discriminant vector forest algorithm, which is one of the mostefficient methods, discriminates between the organisms in the detailed training set with anaccuracy of 75% at a speed of 2000 items per second. A supplementary algorithm tagsobjects that the method classified with low accuracy (suspect items), such that they could bechecked by taxonomists. This complementary and interactive semi-automatic processcombines both computer speed and the ability to detect variations in proportions and greylevels with the human skills to discriminate animals on the basis of small details, such aspresence/absence or number of appendages. After this checking process, total accuracyincreases to between 80% and 85%. We discuss the potential of the system as a standard foridentification, enumeration, and size frequency distribution of net-collected zooplankton.

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

[2]  Gabriel Gorsky,et al.  The Autonomous Image Analyzer - enumeration, measurement and identification of marine phytoplankton , 1989 .

[3]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Flexible Discriminant Analysis by Optimal Scoring , 1994 .

[4]  Mar Ecol Ser Prog,et al.  Biological pattern recognition by neural networks , .

[5]  F. Grassle The Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS): An On-line, Worldwide Atlas for Accessing, Modeling and Mapping Marine Biological Data in a Multidimensional Geographic Context , 2000 .

[6]  Roger Harris,et al.  ICES zooplankton methodology manual , 2000 .

[7]  Donald M. Anderson,et al.  Toxic Marine Phytoplankton , 1987 .

[8]  Manfred Rolke,et al.  Size structure analysis of zooplankton samples by means of an automated image analyzing system , 1984 .

[9]  B. Planque,et al.  Long-term time series in Calanus finmarchicus abundance - A question of space? , 1997 .

[10]  M. Youngbluth Daily, seasonal, and annual fluctuations among zooplankton populations in an unpolluted tropical embayment , 1980 .

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

[12]  He Huang,et al.  Automatic Plankton Image Recognition , 1998, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[13]  A. D. Poularikas,et al.  Automated sizing, counting and identification of zooplankton by pattern recognition , 1984 .

[14]  The synthesis of dynamic and historical data on marine populations and communities; putting dynamics into the Ocean Biogeographical Information System (OBIS) , 2000 .

[15]  K. Banse Zooplankton: Pivotal role in the control of ocean production I. Biomass and production , 1995 .

[16]  P. C. Reid,et al.  Reorganization of North Atlantic Marine Copepod Biodiversity and Climate , 2002, Science.

[17]  U. Siegenthaler,et al.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide and the ocean , 1993, Nature.

[18]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[19]  A. Longhurst,et al.  SKILL IN THE USE OF FOLSOM'S PLANKTON SAMPLE SPLITTER1 , 1967 .

[20]  William Stafford Noble,et al.  Support vector machine , 2013 .

[21]  D. Pauly Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. , 1995, Trends in ecology & evolution.