A review of marine geomorphometry, the quantitative study of the seafloor

Geomorphometry, the science of quantitative terrain characterization, has traditionally focused on the investigation of terrestrial landscapes. However, the dramatic increase in the availability of digital bathymetric data and the increasing ease by which geomorphometry can be investigated using geographic information systems (GISs) and spatial analysis software has prompted interest in employing geomorphometric techniques to investigate the marine environment. Over the last decade or so, a multitude of geomorphometric techniques (e.g. terrain attributes, feature extraction, automated classification) have been applied to characterize seabed terrain from the coastal zone to the deep sea. Geomorphometric techniques are, however, not as varied, nor as extensively applied, in marine as they are in terrestrial environments. This is at least partly due to difficulties associated with capturing, classifying, and validating terrain characteristics underwater. There is, nevertheless, much common ground between terrestrial and marine geomorphometry applications and it is important that, in developing marine geomorphometry, we learn from experiences in terrestrial studies. However, not all terrestrial solutions can be adopted by marine geomorphometric studies since the dynamic, four-dimensional (4-D) nature of the marine environment causes its own issues throughout the geomorphometry workflow. For instance, issues with underwater positioning, variations in sound velocity in the water column affecting acousticbased mapping, and our inability to directly observe and measure depth and morphological features on the seafloor are all issues specific to the application of geomorphometry in the marine environment. Such issues fuel the need for a dedicated scientific effort in marine geomorphometry. This review aims to highlight the relatively recent growth of marine geomorphometry as a distinct discipline, and offers the first comprehensive overview of marine geomorphometry to date. We address all the five main steps of geomorphometry, from data collection to the application of terrain attributes and features. We focus on how these steps are relevant to marine geomorphometry and also highlight differences and similarities from terrestrial geomorphometry. We conclude with recommendations and reflections on the future of marine geomorphometry. To ensure that geomorphometry is used and developed to its full potential, there is a need to increase awareness of (1) marine geomorphometry amongst scientists already engaged in terrestrial geomorphometry, and of (2) geomorphometry as a science amongst marine scientists with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences.peer-reviewe

Characterising the ocean frontier : a review of marine geomorphometry

Geomorphometry, the science that quantitatively describes terrains, has traditionally focused on the investigation of terrestrial landscapes. However, the dramatic increase in the availability of digital bathymetric data and the increasing ease by which geomorphometry can be investigated using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has prompted interest in employing geomorphometric techniques to investigate the marine environment. Over the last decade, a suite of geomorphometric techniques have been applied (e.g. terrain attributes, feature extraction, automated classification) to investigate the characterisation of seabed terrain from the coastal zone to the deep sea. Geomorphometric techniques are, however, not as varied, nor as extensively applied, in marine as they are in terrestrial environments. This is at least partly due to difficulties associated with capturing, classifying, and validating terrain characteristics underwater. There is nevertheless much common ground between terrestrial and marine geomorphology applications and it is important that, in developing the science and application of marine geomorphometry, we build on the lessons learned from terrestrial studies. We note, however, that not all terrestrial solutions can be adopted by marine geomorphometric studies since the dynamic, four- dimensional nature of the marine environment causes its own issues, boosting the need for a dedicated scientific effort in marine geomorphometry. This contribution offers the first comprehensive review of marine geomorphometry to date. It addresses all the five main steps of geomorphometry, from data collection to the application of terrain attributes and features. We focus on how these steps are relevant to marine geomorphometry and also highlight differences from terrestrial geomorphometry. We conclude with recommendations and reflections on the future of marine geomorphometry.peer-reviewe

An ocean of possibilities : applications and challenges of marine geomorphometry

An increase in the use of geomorphometry in the marine environment has occurred in the last decade. This has been fueled by a dramatic increase in digital bathymetric data, which have become widely available as digital terrain models (DTM) at a variety of spatial resolutions. Despite many similarities, the nature of the input DTM is slightly different than terrestrial DTM. This gives rise to different sources of uncertainties in bathymetric data from various sources that will have particular implications for geomorphometric analysis. With this contribution, we aim to raise awareness of applications and challenges of marine geomorphometry.peer-reviewe

Fine-Scale Sea Ice Structure Characterized Using Underwater Acoustic Methods

Antarctic sea ice is known to provide unique ecosystem habitat at the ice–ocean interface. Mapping sea ice characteristics—such as thickness and roughness—at high resolution from beneath the ice is difficult due to access. A Geoswath Plus phase-measuring bathymetric sonar mounted on an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) was employed in this study to collect data underneath the sea ice at Cape Evans in Antarctica in November 2014. This study demonstrates how acoustic data can be collected and processed to resolutions of 1 m for acoustic bathymetry and 5 cm for acoustic backscatter in this challenging environment. Different ice textures such as platelet ice, smooth ice, and sea ice morphologies, ranging in size from 1 to 50 m were characterized. The acoustic techniques developed in this work could provide a key to understanding the distribution of sea ice communities, as they are nondisruptive to the fragile ice environments and provide geolocated data over large spatial extents. These results improve our understanding of sea ice properties and the complex, highly variable ecosystem that exists at this boundary

Comparing Selections of Environmental Variables for Ecological Studies: A Focus on Terrain Attributes

<div><p>Selecting appropriate environmental variables is a key step in ecology. Terrain attributes (<i>e</i>.<i>g</i>. slope, rugosity) are routinely used as abiotic surrogates of species distribution and to produce habitat maps that can be used in decision-making for conservation or management. Selecting appropriate terrain attributes for ecological studies may be a challenging process that can lead users to select a subjective, potentially sub-optimal combination of attributes for their applications. The objective of this paper is to assess the impacts of subjectively selecting terrain attributes for ecological applications by comparing the performance of different combinations of terrain attributes in the production of habitat maps and species distribution models. Seven different selections of terrain attributes, alone or in combination with other environmental variables, were used to map benthic habitats of German Bank (off Nova Scotia, Canada). 29 maps of potential habitats based on unsupervised classifications of biophysical characteristics of German Bank were produced, and 29 species distribution models of sea scallops were generated using MaxEnt. The performances of the 58 maps were quantified and compared to evaluate the effectiveness of the various combinations of environmental variables. One of the combinations of terrain attributes–recommended in a related study and that includes a measure of relative position, slope, two measures of orientation, topographic mean and a measure of rugosity–yielded better results than the other selections for both methodologies, confirming that they together best describe terrain properties. Important differences in performance (up to 47% in accuracy measurement) and spatial outputs (up to 58% in spatial distribution of habitats) highlighted the importance of carefully selecting variables for ecological applications. This paper demonstrates that making a subjective choice of variables may reduce map accuracy and produce maps that do not adequately represent habitats and species distributions, thus having important implications when these maps are used for decision-making.</p></div

Outcropping reef ledges drive patterns of epibenthic assemblage diversity on cross-shelf habitats

Seafloor habitats on continental shelf margins are increasingly being the subject of worldwide conservation efforts to protect them from human activities due to their biological and economic value. Quantitative data on the epibenthic taxa which contributes to the biodiversity value of these continental shelf margins is vital for the effectiveness of these efforts, especially at the spatial resolution required to effectively manage theseecosystems. We quantified the diversity of morphotype classes on an outcropping reef system characteristic of the continental shelf margin in the Flinders Commonwealth Marine Reserve, southeastern Australia. The system is uniquely characterized by long linear outcropping ledge features in sedimentary bedrock that differ markedly from the surrounding low-profile, sand-inundated reefs. We characterize a reef system harboring rich morphotype classes, with a total of 55 morphotype classes identified from the still images captured by an autonomous underwater vehicle. The morphotype class Cnidaria/Bryzoa/Hydroid matrix dominated the assemblages recorded. Both a and b diversitydeclined sharply with distance from nearest outcropping reef ledge feature. Patterns of the morphotype classes were characterized by (1) morphotype turnover at scales of 5 to 10s m from nearest outcropping reef ledge feature, (2) 30 % of morphotype classes were recordedonly once (i.e. singletons), and (3) generally low levels of abundance (proportion cover) of the component morphotype class. This suggests that the assemblages in this region contain a considerable number of locally rare morphotype classes. This study highlights the particular importance of outcropping reef ledge features in this region, as they provide a refuge against sediment scouring and inundation common on the low profile reef that characterizes this region. As outcropping reef features, they represent a small fraction of overall reef habitat yet contain much of the epibenthic faunal diversity. This study has relevance to conservation planning for continental shelf habitats, as protecting a single, or few, areas of reef is unlikely to accurately represent the geomorphic diversity of cross-shelf habitats and the morphotype diversity that is associated with these features. Equally, whendesigning monitoring programs these spatially-discrete, but biologically rich outcropping reef ledge features should be considered as distinct components in stratified sampling designs

Brief Communication: Capturing scales of spatial heterogeneity of Antarctic sea ice algae communities

Identifying spatial heterogeneity of sea ice algae communities is critical to predicting ecosystem response under future climate scenarios. Using an autonomous robotic sampling platform beneath sea ice in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, we measured irradiance in spectral bands expected to describe the spatial heterogeneity. Derived estimates of ice algae biomass identified patchiness at length scales varying from 50-70 m under first-year sea ice. These results demonstrate that a step-change in how these communities can be assessed and monitored. The developed methodologies could be subsequently refined to further categorize different ice algae communities and their associated productivity in both Arctic and Antarctic waters

Percentage of variable contribution for the 29 MaxEnt models.

<p>Only contributions greater than 5% are labeled.</p

Selections of terrain attributes used to build the habitat maps and models.

<p>The ID numbers refer to Lecours <i>et al</i>. [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0167128#pone.0167128.ref004" target="_blank">4</a>] and allow finding the software and parameters with which the attributes were generated (see also <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0167128#pone.0167128.s001" target="_blank">S1 Appendix</a>). Marker variables correspond to important variables; whether they were found on strong components (Sel. 1) or weak components (Sel. 4) is linked to the amount of topographic structure they accounted for. Variables with low cardinality (Sel. 2) did not have many different values, thus limiting their ability to explain slight variations in terrain morphology. Complex variables (Sel. 3) correspond to redundant variables. The terrain attributes identified by an asterisk were previously identified as potentially important [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0167128#pone.0167128.ref004" target="_blank">4</a>]. The underlined attributes were recommended in [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0167128#pone.0167128.ref004" target="_blank">4</a>].</p

Performance and robustness of the 29 MaxEnt models.

<p>Models in the top-left corner of the graph performed better and are more robust. Colour legend: Selection 1 (black), Selection 2 (blue), Selection 3 (red), Selection 4 (green), Selection 5 (purple), Selection 6 (orange), Selection 7 (white).</p