Skip Navigation



JPR Advance Access published online on September 15, 2008
Journal of Plankton Research, doi:10.1093/plankt/fbn092
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/12/1351    most recent
fbn092v1
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bell, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hopcroft, R. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bell, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hopcroft, R. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Assessment of ZooImage as a tool for the classification of zooplankton

Jenefer Bell and Russell R. Hopcroft

Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 USA, e-mail: hopcroft{at}ims.uaf.edu

Received on July 24, 2008; revised on September 10, 2008; accepted on September 14, 2008


  Abstract

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.

Key Words: Zooplankton • Image analysis • ZooImage

Communicating Editor: Professor Mark Gibbons


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
A. Gislason and T. Silva
Comparison between automated analysis of zooplankton using ZooImage and traditional methodology
J. Plankton Res., December 1, 2009; 31(12): 1505 - 1516.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J PLANKTON RESHome page
K. Manriquez, R. Escribano, and P. Hidalgo
The influence of coastal upwelling on the mesozooplankton community structure in the coastal zone off Central/Southern Chile as assessed by automated image analysis
J. Plankton Res., September 1, 2009; 31(9): 1075 - 1088.
[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.