Remote Sensing Method for

Mapping Seagrass Species, Cover, and Biomass

Assistant Professor
Dr. Werapong Koedsin

Prince of Songkla University, Phuket

Campus
 Introduction

(Orth, et al., 2006)

2
Introduction (continued)

3
Introduction (continued)

4
Materials and Methods

5
Study Site

6
 Materials and Methods
WorldView-2 Satellite Image
Characteristics of WorldView-2
Panchromatic 0.46 m
Sensor Resolution
Multispectral 1.84 m
Sensor Bands Panchromatic: 450 - 800 nm
B1: Coastal: 400 - 450 nm
B2: Blue: 450 - 510 nm
B3: Green: 510 - 580 nm
Sensor Bands B4: Yellow: 585 - 625 nm
(8 Multispectral) B5: Red: 630 - 690 nm
B6: Red Edge: 705 - 745 nm
B7: Near-IR1: 770 - 895 nm
B8: Near-IR2: 860 - 1040 nm
Swath Width 16.4 km at Nadir
(DigitalGlobe, 2012)
7
 Materials and Methods
Conceptual Framework
WorldView-2 Image Field survey

Line Transect Method,

Geometric and Atmospheric correction
Spot Check Method

Supervised Classification Species, Cover (%) and

Biomass
Seagrass Boundary
Training
Seagrass Species Random
Percentage covers Testing
Stepwise Multiple Linear
Regression
Biomass Map Biomass Model
8
 Materials and Methods

Field Survey

9
 Materials and Method: Field data collection
• The field data collection was carried out from 16 to 18 February 2014
under the protocols of the Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resource
(English et.al, 1997)
• Tide conditions (i.e., approximately 1.0 m below mean sea level) and also a
0.5 m water level difference with the satellite image acquisition time (i.e.,
approximately 1.5 m below mean sea level)
• Nine transect lines and Spot check methods were used.
• Photo-Quadrats (0.5 x 0.5 m2) were captured at 20 m intervals for species
and percentage cover.
• The coordinate of each of the sampling points was logged by a Topcon
Hiper SR receiver using RTK positioning techniques (uncertainty less than
one pixel of WV-2).
• Above-ground seagrass biomass was measured in 0.5 m x 0.5 m2 quadrats
of sample sites located at 40-m intervals along the transect line. 10
 Sample Points Data
Total Sample Points is 268
1) seagrass 218 points
 Enhalus acoroides) 61 points
 Halophila ovalis 66 points
 Thalassia hemprichii 36 points
 Mixed 55 points
2) sand and mud 50 points

11
 Materials and Method: Field data collection
Line Transect Method

(Di Carlo and McKenzie, 2011)

P.1 0 m
20 m
P.2 20 m

Sampling biomass
Photo Quadrat P.3 40 m every 40 m
0.5×0.5 m Recorded the
coordinate by
Line Transect
surveying GPS
12
 Materials and Method: Field data collection
Spot Check Method

Seagrass Surveying
point

Recorded the
position by surveying
GPS

Photo Quadrat
0.5×0.5 m
13
 Materials and Method: Field data collection
 In the Field (Line transect and spot check)

14
 Materials and Method

Field Data Processing

15
Materials and Method

* Dominant species
 Materials and Method
Percentage cover


17
 Materials and Method
Percentage cover

Photo Cropped Area sample points (10×10 points)

Percentage cover report Identified the cover type and

calculate the seagrass cover 18
 Materials and Method
Biomass

Clean leaves and stems rhizomes and roots

Weighed
Baked at 70°C for 5 days 19
 Materials and Method

Satellite image processing

20
Materials and Method
Materials and Method:
Materials and Methods

Seagrass Biomass
Samples points data from
fieldwork
The reflectance values from
the corrected WV-2 image
วิธีการศึกษา (ต่อ)
Stepwise Multiple
Linear Regression
(SMLR)
Biomass Model

The lowest RMSE model

Biomass Map

24
Results and discussions

25
 Spatial Distribution of Seagrass Area
Table 1. Maximum Likelihood Classification accuracies for mapping spatial distribution of
seagrass using different spectral combinations. OA is the Overall Accuracy.

Table 2. The confusion matrix. PA is Producer’s accuracy; UA is User’s accuracy. The gray
area shows the confusion between seagrass and sand.

26
Spatial Distribution of Seagrass Area

The seagrass area map for

Paklok Bay derived from
Worldview-2 image. The OA
and kappa coefficient of the
classification were 90.67%
and 0.84, respectively. The
seagrass bed is spread along
the coast as a band
approximately 200 to 700 m
from the shoreline. The total
seagrass area was
approximately 1.50 square
kilometers.

27
 Percentage Cover Mapping
Table 3. The accuracies for mapping percentage seagrass cover using
different spectral combinations. OA is the Overall Accuracy

Table 4. The confusion matrix. PA is Producer’s accuracy; UA is User’s

accuracy.

28
 Percentage Cover Mapping
The OA and kappa coefficient of the
classification were 73.74% and 0.64,
respectively. Approximately 70% of
the seagrass area had a percentage
cover lower than 76% (31% total area
for 51%–75% covers, 32% total area
for 26%–50% covers, and 7% total
areas for 0%–25% covers). The area
of dense seagrass cover (i.e., higher
than 75% cover) was a long thin band
spread along the shoreline in the
central area of the seagrass area of
the bay (dark green areas in Figure ).
The low cover patches (26%–50%)
were mostly located in submerged
areas and made a minor contribution
to the total biomass. 29
 Seagrass Species Mapping
Table 5. The accuracies for seagrass species mapping. OA is the Overall Accuracy

Table 6. The confusion matrix. PA is Producer’s accuracy; UA is User’s accuracy. The gray
area on the table shows the confusion between Enhalus acoroides and Halophila ovalis.

30
 Seagrass Species Mapping

The OA and kappa coefficient

of the classification were
75.00% and 0.61, respectively.
The map shows that the three
dominant species are spread
over the shoreline except
around the north, where
Enhalus acoroides was not
found. Approximately 63%,
23%, and 14% of areas are
covered by Halophila ovalis,
Enhalus acoroides, and
Thalassia hemprichii,
respectively.
31
Above-Ground Biomass Mapping

32
Above-Ground Biomass Mapping

The map produced from the

global above-ground biomass
model (i.e., all three dominant
species within one model). The
results showed that the overall
average total of above-ground
biomass per square kilometer
was 23.95 tons DW/km2 or
23.95 g.DW/m2 (calculated
from the average of all
seagrass pixels per total area
of seagrass) with an error
(RMSE) of 10.38 tons DW/km2
or 10.38 g DW/m2.
33
Conclusions

34
Conclusions

35
Acknowledgments

36
Ongoing and the near future works on seagrass

37
 References

 DigitalGlobe. (2012). “WorldView-2 DATA SHEET.” (Online) Available on

http://satimagIngcorp.s3.Amzaonaws.amazonaws.com/site/pdf/WorldView-
2_datasheet.pdf. (10 March 2014).
 English, S., Wilkinson, C. and Baker, V. (1997). Survey Manual for Tropical
Marine Resources 2nd. ASEAN-Australia Marine Science Project: Living
Coastal Resources, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australia.
• Lewmanomont, K. and Ogawa, H. (1995). Common Seaweeds and
Seagrasses of Thailand, Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University, Integrated
Promotion Technology Co.Ltd, Bangkok.
• Orth, R., Carruthers, T., Dennison, W., Duarte, C., Fourqurean, J., Heck, K.,
Hughes, A., Kendrick, G., Kenworthy, W., Olyarnik, S., Short, F., Waycott,
M. and WilliamsI, S. (2006). “A Global Crisis for Seagrass Ecosystems.”
BioScience, 56(12), 987-996.

38