Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Embleton, K. V.
Right arrow Articles by Heaney, S. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Embleton, K. V.
Right arrow Articles by Heaney, S. I.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Plankton Research Vol.25 no.6 pp.669-681, 2003
© Oxford University Press 2003

Automated counting of phytoplankton by pattern recognition: a comparison with a manual counting method

K. V. Embleton1,*, C. E. Gibson and S. I. Heaney

Aquatic Systems Group, Queens University Of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast Bt9 5px, Uk

* Corresponding Author: karl.embleton{at}misbe-mrbig.smb.man.ac.uk

1 Present Address: Imaging Science And Biomedical Engineering, Stopford Building, University Of Manchester, Manchester M13 9pt, UK

Computer-based image analysis and pattern recognition methods were used to construct a system able automatically to identify, count and measure selected groups of phytoplankton. An image analysis algorithm was employed to isolate and measure objects from digitized images of a phytoplankton sample. The measurements obtained were used to identify selected groups of phytoplankton by a combination of artificial neural networks and simple rule-based procedures. The system was trained and tested using samples of lake water covering an annual growth cycle from Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland. Total volume estimates were obtained for the four major phytoplankton species, using both the automated system and a manual counting method. Estimates of total cell volume obtained from the automated system were within 10% of those derived by manual analysis of the same cells. The automated system produced total cell volume estimates close to those obtained from manual analysis of different aliquots of the same water sample. Variation between successive counts of the same water sample was higher with the automated system than with the manual counting method. Limitations and possible improvements to the technology are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J PLANKTON RESHome page
J. L. Bell and R. R. Hopcroft
Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton
J. Plankton Res., December 1, 2008; 30(12): 1351 - 1367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J PLANKTON RESHome page
B. A. Hense, P. Gais, U. Jutting, H. Scherb, and K. Rodenacker
Use of fluorescence information for automated phytoplankton investigation by image analysis
J. Plankton Res., May 1, 2008; 30(5): 587 - 606.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J PLANKTON RESHome page
K. Ishikawa, M. Kumagai, and R. F. Walker
Application of autonomous underwater vehicle and image analysis for detecting the three-dimensional distribution of freshwater red tide Uroglena americana (Chrysophyceae)
J. Plankton Res., January 1, 2005; 27(1): 129 - 134.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.