scholarly journals Quantitative experimental comparison of single-beam, sidescan, and multibeam benthic habitat maps

2010 ◽  
Vol 67 (8) ◽  
pp. 1766-1779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre C. G. Schimel ◽  
Terry R. Healy ◽  
David Johnson ◽  
Dirk Immenga
Keyword(s):  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Marine Reserve ◽  
Similarity Measures ◽  
Experimental Comparison ◽  
Sidescan Sonar ◽  
Benthic Habitat ◽  
Map Comparison ◽  
Single Beam ◽  
Seabed Classification

Abstract Schimel, A. C. G., Healy, T. R., Johnson, D., and Immenga, D. 2010. Quantitative experimental comparison of single-beam, sidescan, and multibeam benthic habitat maps. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1766–1779. Map comparison is a relatively uncommon practice in acoustic seabed classification to date, contrary to the field of land remote sensing, where it has been developed extensively over recent decades. The aim here is to illustrate the benefits of map comparison in the underwater realm with a case study of three maps independently describing the seabed habitats of the Te Matuku Marine Reserve (Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand). The maps are obtained from a QTC View classification of a single-beam echosounder (SBES) dataset, manual segmentation of a sidescan sonar (SSS) mosaic, and automatic classification of a backscatter dataset from a multibeam echosounder (MBES). The maps are compared using pixel-to-pixel similarity measures derived from the literature in land remote sensing. All measures agree in presenting the MBES and SSS maps as the most similar, and the SBES and SSS maps as the least similar. The results are discussed with reference to the potential of MBES backscatter as an alternative to SSS mosaic for imagery segmentation and to the potential of joint SBES–SSS survey for improved habitat mapping. Other applications of map-similarity measures in acoustic classification of the seabed are suggested.

Multiswath multibeam echosounder for efficient seabed backscatter imaging and classification

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Didier Charlot ◽  
Philippe Alain ◽  
Geraldine Duffait ◽  
Olivier Lerda ◽  
Guillaume Matte
Keyword(s):  
Grazing Angle ◽  
Sidescan Sonar ◽  
Sediment Type ◽  
Ecosystem Research ◽  
Multibeam Echosounder ◽  
Single Beam ◽  
Angular Response ◽  
Seabed Classification ◽  
Sonar System ◽  
Echo Sounder

<p><strong>MULTISWATH MULTIBEAM ECHOSOUNDER FOR EFFICIENT SEABED BACKSCATTER IMAGING AND CLASSIFICATION</strong></p><ol><li><strong> Didier Charlot<sup>(1)</sup>,Philippe  Alain<sup>(1)</sup>, Géraldine Duffait<sup>(2)</sup> ,Olivier Lerda<sup>(2)</sup>, Guillaume Matte<sup>(2)</sup></strong></li> </ol><p> (1) iXBlue Sonar System Division, 256 rue Rivoalon, 29200 Brest,  France</p><p>(2) iXBlue Sonar System Division, 46 Quai F. Mitterrand, 13600 La Ciotat, France.</p><p> </p><p>               Managing marine resources and habitats require a classification system to identify and characterized seabed properties. Acoustic systems are recognized to be remote sensing tools that measure efficiently sediment properties and seabed morphology [1].Single beam, multibeam echosounder and sidescan sonar systems are commonly used to characterize seabed type by respectively analyzing echo strength returns, backscatter (BS) angular response, and texture analysis. Multibeam  (and interferometric sidescan ) systems  have the great advantage to measure the bottom bathymetry hence the true grazing angle at least in the across track direction. But there are still some challenges to face to get a robust calibrated BS value. </p><p>First, standard multibeam systems  do not measure directly the full BS backscatter angular response on each soundings. This can be accomplished by using a dual axis multibeam to record the BS in the along track direction[2]. The BS angular response is  a powerful metric to characterize the sediment type. </p><p>Second, the BS response is sensitive to the insonification direction (azimuth) and this dependency should also be considered to improve calibration procedure.  Recently, a full 3D steerable high resolution multibeam system has been developed [3]. First investigation ([3],[4]) have shown the high potential of multiswath multibeam system. With the 3D steerable swath capability, the bidirectional BS angular response can be recorded on each insonified soundings. This presentation will emphasize recent advances in processing using the  full multiswath multibeam capabilities.</p><p> </p><p>References:</p><p>[1] John T. Anderson, Editor,”Acoustic Seabed Classification of Marine Physical And biological Landscapes”, ICES Report N° 286, August 2007</p><p>[2]M.  Gutberlet and H. W. Schenke ,“HYDROSWEEP : New Era in High precision bathymetric Surveying in Deep and Shallow water” , Marine Geodesy,1989, Vol13,pp1-23</p><p>[3] F. Mosca & al., “Scientific potential of a new 3D multibeam echosounder in fisheries and ecosystem research”, Fisheries Research 178 pg. 130-141, 2016.</p><p>[4] Nguyen, Trung Kiên , Charlot D. , Boucher  J.-M , Le Chenadec G.,  Fablet R., “Seabed classification using a steerable multibeam echo sounder”. Oceans 2016 MTS/IEEE 2016,Monterey</p><p>[5] Nguyen, Trung Kiên, ”Seafloor classification with a multi-swath multi-beam echo sounder”, PhD thesis 2017, IMT Atlantique; http://www.theses.fr/2017IMTA0035</p>

scholarly journals Monitoring aquatic plants: An evaluation of hydroacoustic, on-site digitising and airborne remote sensing techniques

2019 ◽  
pp. 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerom R. Stocks ◽  
Michael P. Rodgers ◽  
Joe B. Pera ◽  
Dean M. Gilligan
Keyword(s):  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Aquatic Macrophytes ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Sidescan Sonar ◽  
Plant Management ◽  
Line Transect ◽  
Specific Method ◽  
Airborne Remote Sensing ◽  
Single Beam ◽  
Eastern Australia

Aquatic macrophytes are often monitored to detect change in ecosystem function and state, as well as assessing the effectiveness of invasive aquatic plant management. This study compares seven methodologies to monitor the distribution and abundances of aquatic macrophytes. Four line transect methodologies and three spatial mapping techniques were employed in parallel over a broad turbidity gradient in two lentic habitats of south-eastern Australia. The methodologies examined included hydroacoustic surveys, on-site digitising, and digitisation of airborne remote sensing imagery. Variation in estimates of macrophyte coverage were observed between methodologies. Consistency in the collection and interpretation of data was greatest for the line transect methodologies and the digitisation of satellite imagery. Duel-frequency identification sonar proved to be an effective novel hydroacoustic technique to monitor macrophyte abundances over broad spatial scales. Single beam sonar transects was also an objective, repeatable and scalable methodology. Videography and on-site handheld PDA mapping were of limited utility due to restrictions imposed by turbidity. The utility of sidescan sonar could be improved when used in conjunction with on-site handheld PDA mapping. This study outlines important considerations when selecting a methodology to monitor macrophyte distribution and abundance. Results indicate that no one specific method can be employed across all macrophyte monitoring studies. The method or combination of methods employed during macrophyte monitoring studies is dependent upon the study objectives, budget and environmental conditions of the study site.

scholarly journals The Value of Acoustic Backscattering in Determining the Integration Thickness of the Seabed in Yos Sudarso Bay Papua

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-243
Author(s):  
Sri Pujiyati ◽  
Nyoman MN Natih ◽  
Baigo Hamuna ◽  
Lisiard Dimara
Keyword(s):  
Fine Sand ◽  
Coarse Sand ◽  
Ocean Floor ◽  
Single Beam ◽  
Acoustic Backscattering ◽  
Acoustic Data ◽  
Seabed Classification ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Pacific Ocean

A considerable amount of research has already been conducted into the nature of water on the ocean floor/seabed, ranging from mapping of the seabed, volume backscattering strength (SV) of acoustics on the seabed, classification of the seabed, besides the relationship between the ocean floor and the biota above it with which it interacts. The Yos Sudarso Bay, Jayapura Papua, is a bay with a seabed which faces the floor of the Pacific Ocean and also forms the estuary of the river Anafre which contributes particles that settle on the seabed.  This research aimed to collect data in order to understand differences in the integration of water thickness at 0.2 m and 0.5 m besides differences in the types of the substrate based on the results of SV. Data was collected using a single beam echosounder.  The acoustic data were collected at 11 stations. The result is interval of value of SV ranged from -37.81dB to -15.62 dB (at the integration of 0.2 m) up to -15.07dB (at the integration of 0.5 m). The value of SV from the gravel was higher compared to the values found in the coarse sand, fine sand, mud mixed with sand or the pure mud. The lowest value of SV was found in the mud substrate. Results showed that thickness integration yielded different results when tested at 0.2 m and 0.5 m on the seabed. Furthermore, it was found that different types of substrate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document