Revealing the impact of spatial bias in survey design for habitat mapping: A tale of two sampling designs

Submerged aquatic vegetation, referring to benthic macroalgae and plants that obligately grow underwater, are critical components of marine ecosystems and are frequently found to provide preferential recruitment habitats. The mapping and monitoring of aquatic vegetation through remote sensing and machine learning is becoming an important aspect of managing coastal environments at scale. Accurate mapping and monitoring require robust sampling and occurrence data to assess predictive error and quantify submerged vegetation extents. The form of ground truthing survey design (preferential, random, grid-based or spatially balanced) could significantly influence predictive model outcomes and the overall accuracy of mapping and monitoring. Here, we test and contrast mapping aquatic vegetation extent ground-truthed using two different sampling designs: we used both preferential and spatially balanced sampling designs across four coastal sites along the midwest of Australia. We validate the map outcomes using spatial cross-validation and demonstrate that spatially balanced ground truthing significantly outperforms preferential sampling designs regarding modelled extent and map accuracy. In our comparison, we found that, on average, preferential designs overestimated vegetation extent by 25 percent compared to balanced designs and achieved an average kappa statistic, F1 score and Area under the Curve of 0.48, 0.615 and 0.517, respectively; whereas balanced designs achieved a kappa statistic, F1 score and AUC of 0.84, 0.85 and 0.83 respectively. We strongly recommend that sampling designs for remote sensing-derived habitat models be spatially balanced where habitat extent is proposed as a metric for monitoring. • The type of survey design can influence model, mapping and monitoring outcomes. • We surveyed the same locations using two different survey designs to test map accuracy. • With remote sensing and machine learning we classified submerged vegetation using the different survey designs. • Preferential designs overestimated vegetation extent and achieved poor validation metrics. • We strongly recommend that sampling designs for remote sensing-derived habitat models be spatially balanced.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Remote Sensing Applications Society and Environment
Published
2024-08-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2024.101327
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.29

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Revealing the impact of spatial bias in survey design for habitat mapping: A tale of two sampling designs

Sharyn Hickey, Stanley Mastrantonis, Claude Spencer, Ben Radford et al.
5 citations
Remote Sensing Applications Society and Environment
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
2.29
article

Revealing the impact of spatial bias in survey design for habitat mapping: A tale of two sampling designs

Sharyn Hickey, Stanley Mastrantonis, Claude Spencer, Ben Radford, Simon de Lestang, Tim Langlois
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Submerged aquatic vegetation, referring to benthic macroalgae and plants that obligately grow underwater, are critical components of marine ecosystems and are frequently found to provide preferential recruitment habitats. The mapping and monitoring of aquatic vegetation through remote sensing and machine learning is becoming an important aspect of managing coastal environments at scale. Accurate mapping and monitoring require robust sampling and occurrence data to assess predictive error and quantify submerged vegetation extents. The form of ground truthing survey design (preferential, random, grid-based or spatially balanced) could significantly influence predictive model outcomes and the overall accuracy of mapping and monitoring. Here, we test and contrast mapping aquatic vegetation extent ground-truthed using two different sampling designs: we used both preferential and spatially balanced sampling designs across four coastal sites along the midwest of Australia. We validate the map outcomes using spatial cross-validation and demonstrate that spatially balanced ground truthing significantly outperforms preferential sampling designs regarding modelled extent and map accuracy. In our comparison, we found that, on average, preferential designs overestimated vegetation extent by 25 percent compared to balanced designs and achieved an average kappa statistic, F1 score and Area under the Curve of 0.48, 0.615 and 0.517, respectively; whereas balanced designs achieved a kappa statistic, F1 score and AUC of 0.84, 0.85 and 0.83 respectively. We strongly recommend that sampling designs for remote sensing-derived habitat models be spatially balanced where habitat extent is proposed as a metric for monitoring. • The type of survey design can influence model, mapping and monitoring outcomes. • We surveyed the same locations using two different survey designs to test map accuracy. • With remote sensing and machine learning we classified submerged vegetation using the different survey designs. • Preferential designs overestimated vegetation extent and achieved poor validation metrics. • We strongly recommend that sampling designs for remote sensing-derived habitat models be spatially balanced.

Remote Sensing Applications Society and EnvironmentVol. 36
Australian Institute of Marine Science (AU), The University of Western Australia (AU)
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
2.29
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.