TY - JOUR
T1 - The effect of automated taxa identification errors on biological indices
AU - Ärje, Johanna
AU - Kärkkäinen, Salme
AU - Meissner, Kristian
AU - Iosifidis, Alexandros
AU - Ince, Türker
AU - Gabbouj, Moncef
AU - Kiranyaz, Serkan
PY - 2016/12/13
Y1 - 2016/12/13
N2 - In benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring systems, the target is to determine the status of ecosystems based on several biological indices. To increase cost-efficiency, computer-based taxa identification for image data has recently been developed. Taxa identification errors can, however, have strong effects on the indices and thus on the determination of the ecological status. In order to shift the biomonitoring process towards automated expert systems, we need a clear understanding on the bias caused by automation. In this paper, we examine eleven classification methods in the case of macroinvertebrate image data and show how their classification errors propagate into different biological indices. We evaluate 14 richness, diversity, dominance and similarity indices commonly used in biomonitoring. Besides the error rate of the classification method, we discuss the potential effect of different types of identification errors. Finally, we provide recommendations on indices that are least affected by the automatic identification errors and could be used in automated biomonitoring.
AB - In benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring systems, the target is to determine the status of ecosystems based on several biological indices. To increase cost-efficiency, computer-based taxa identification for image data has recently been developed. Taxa identification errors can, however, have strong effects on the indices and thus on the determination of the ecological status. In order to shift the biomonitoring process towards automated expert systems, we need a clear understanding on the bias caused by automation. In this paper, we examine eleven classification methods in the case of macroinvertebrate image data and show how their classification errors propagate into different biological indices. We evaluate 14 richness, diversity, dominance and similarity indices commonly used in biomonitoring. Besides the error rate of the classification method, we discuss the potential effect of different types of identification errors. Finally, we provide recommendations on indices that are least affected by the automatic identification errors and could be used in automated biomonitoring.
KW - Biomonitoring
KW - Classification error
KW - Diversity: Error propagation
KW - Identification
KW - Similarity
U2 - 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.12.015
DO - 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.12.015
M3 - Article
SN - 0957-4174
VL - 72
SP - 108
EP - 120
JO - Expert Systems with Applications
JF - Expert Systems with Applications
ER -