Understanding and attributing changes to water quality is essential to the study and management of coastal ecosystems and the ecological functions they sustain (e.g., primary productivity, predation, and submerged aquatic vegetation growth). However, describing patterns of water clarity—a key aspect of water quality—over meaningful scales in space and time is challenged by high spatial and temporal variability due to natural and anthropogenic processes. Regionally tuned satellite algorithms can provide a more complete understanding of coastal water clarity changes and drivers. In this study, we used open‐access satellite data and low‐cost in situ methods to improve estimates of water clarity in an optically complex coastal water body. Specifically, we created a remote sensing water clarity product by compiling Landsat‐8 and Sentinel‐2 reflectance data with long‐term Secchi depth measurements at 12 sites over 8 years in a shallow turbid coastal lagoon system in Virginia, USA. Our satellite‐based model explained ∼33% of the variation in in situ water clarity. Our approach increases the spatiotemporal coverage of in situ water clarity data and improves estimates from bio‐optical algorithms that overpredicted water clarity. This could lead to a better understanding of water clarity changes and drivers to better predict how water quality will change in the future.
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10344695
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- OCEANS 2022 - Chennai
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 6
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract
The NeonTreeCrowns dataset is a set of individual level crown estimates for 100 million trees at 37 geographic sites across the United States surveyed by the National Ecological Observation Network’s Airborne Observation Platform. Each rectangular bounding box crown prediction includes height, crown area, and spatial location.
How can I see the data?
A web server to look through predictions is available through idtrees.org
Dataset Organization
The shapefiles.zip contains 11,000 shapefiles, each corresponding to a 1km^2 RGB tile from NEON (ID: DP3.30010.001). For example "2019_SOAP_4_302000_4100000_image.shp" are the predictions from "2019_SOAP_4_302000_4100000_image.tif" available from the NEON data portal: https://data.neonscience.org/data-products/explore?search=camera. NEON's file convention refers to the year of data collection (2019), the four letter site code (SOAP), the sampling event (4), and the utm coordinate of the top left corner (302000_4100000). For NEON site abbreviations and utm zones see https://www.neonscience.org/field-sites/field-sites-map.
The predictions are also available as a single csv for each file. All available tiles for that site and year are combined into one large site. These data are not projected, but contain the utm coordinates for each bounding box (left, bottom, right, top). For both file types the following fields are available:
Height: The crown height measured in meters. Crown height is defined as the 99th quartile of all canopy height pixels from a LiDAR height model (ID: DP3.30015.001)
Area: The crown area in m2 of the rectangular bounding box.
Label: All data in this release are "Tree".
Score: The confidence score from the DeepForest deep learning algorithm. The score ranges from 0 (low confidence) to 1 (high confidence)
How were predictions made?
The DeepForest algorithm is available as a python package: https://deepforest.readthedocs.io/. Predictions were overlaid on the LiDAR-derived canopy height model. Predictions with heights less than 3m were removed.
How were predictions validated?
Please see
Weinstein, B. G., Marconi, S., Bohlman, S. A., Zare, A., & White, E. P. (2020). Cross-site learning in deep learning RGB tree crown detection. Ecological Informatics, 56, 101061.
Weinstein, B., Marconi, S., Aubry-Kientz, M., Vincent, G., Senyondo, H., & White, E. (2020). DeepForest: A Python package for RGB deep learning tree crown delineation. bioRxiv.
Weinstein, Ben G., et al. "Individual tree-crown detection in RGB imagery using semi-supervised deep learning neural networks." Remote Sensing 11.11 (2019): 1309.
Were any sites removed?
Several sites were removed due to poor NEON data quality. GRSM and PUUM both had lower quality RGB data that made them unsuitable for prediction. NEON surveys are updated annually and we expect future flights to correct these errors. We removed the GUIL puerto rico site due to its very steep topography and poor sunangle during data collection. The DeepForest algorithm responded poorly to predicting crowns in intensely shaded areas where there was very little sun penetration. We are happy to make these data are available upon request.
# Contact
We welcome questions, ideas and general inquiries. The data can be used for many applications and we look forward to hearing from you. Contact ben.weinstein@weecology.org.
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation: GBMF4563 -
more » « less
Abstract Excessive algae growth can lead to negative consequences for ecosystem function, economic opportunity, and human and animal health. Due to the cost‐effectiveness and temporal availability of satellite imagery, remote sensing has become a powerful tool for water quality monitoring. The use of remotely sensed products to monitor water quality related to algae and cyanobacteria productivity during a bloom event may help inform management strategies for inland waters. To evaluate the ability of satellite imagery to monitor algae pigments and dissolved oxygen conditions in a small inland lake, chlorophyll‐a, phycocyanin, and dissolved oxygen concentrations are measured using a YSI EXO2 sonde during Sentinel‐2 and Sentinel‐3 overpasses from 2019 to 2022 on Lake Mendota, WI. Machine learning methods are implemented with existing algorithms to model chlorophyll‐a, phycocyanin, and Pc:Chla. A novel machine learning‐based dissolved oxygen modeling approach is developed using algae pigment concentrations as predictors. Best model results based on Sentinel‐2 (Sentinel‐3) imagery achieved R2scores of 0.47 (0.42) for chlorophyll‐a, 0.69 (0.22) for phycocyanin, and 0.70 (0.41) for Pc:Chla. Dissolved oxygen models achieved an
R 2of 0.68 (0.36) when applied to Sentinel‐2 (Sentinel‐3) imagery, and Pc:Chla is found to be the most important predictive feature. Random forest models are better suited to water quality estimations in this system given built in methods for feature selection and a relatively small data set. Use of these approaches for estimation of Pc:Chla and dissolved oxygen can increase the water quality information extracted from satellite imagery and improve characterization of algae conditions among inland waters. -
Scientists continue to study the red tide and fish-kill events happening in Florida. Machine learning applications using remote sensing data on coastal waters to monitor water quality parameters and detect harmful algal blooms are also being studied. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) are often deployed on data collection and disaster response missions. To enhance study and mitigation efforts, robots must be able to use available data to navigate these underwater environments. In this study, we compute a satellite-derived underwater environment (SDUE) model by implementing a supervised machine learning model where remote sensing reflectance (Rrs) indices are labeled with in-situ data they correlate with. The models predict bathymetry and water quality parameters given a recent remote sensing image. In our experiment, we use Sentine1-2 (S2) images and in-situ data of the Biscayne Bay to create an SDUE that can be used as a Chlorophyll-a map. The SDUE is then used in an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) application that solves an underwater vehicle localization and navigation problem.more » « less
-
Obeid, I. (Ed.)The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do not have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANSChennai45887.2022.9775339
