Thursday, May 24, 2012

Virtual SAV Ground Truthing

ciBioBase is the future of aquatic vegetation mapping!  Not only can aquatic vegetation data be collected on non-dedicated mapping time, but it can be collected by everyone in your organization to crowd source the effort of creating a time stamped aquatic habitat database.  One thing we recognized right away was the need to offer virtual ground truthing of your % BioVolume output for accuracy confirmation.  If you can do it from our computer within each trip, there's literally no additional effort to make sure your maps are right on!  That's why we provide Trip Replay!

With Trip Replay you can replay your entire trip and be sure that the % BV heat maps match the cross section of the water column as your watch your boat travel along your transects.  See below for an example of data collected in a bay with a hydrilla infestation:


Your raw data collection is automatically processed by our powerful cloud servers and fully mapped with krigging algorithms and other geo-statistical considerations.  Best part is it's all done in minutes and you don't need any background in GIS.  Once processed, you can then replay the entire trip and watch your boat travel along the transects and ground truth the % BV heat map with the water column cross section (on the right).   Blue represents 0 % BV and red shows 100% BV. 

This feature allows our customers to verify every trip output for accuracy and provide objective evidence for anyone that questions your aquatic vegetation maps!  Let us know what you think and log into our demo account to see it for yourself:

http://www.cibiobase.com/, click "login" in the upper right hand corner
Username: demo@cibiobase.com
Password: demo

Thursday, May 10, 2012

What to do with all this Lake Habitat Data!?

Fifteen data points per second, four hours on Lake X today, several more tomorrow.  Lake Y and Z to follow.  Repeat next year and the year after.  Since no one has to process the data, it can be collected during non-dedicated mapping time by hitting record on your Lowrance HDS each time  your on the water.  Simple math tells you that this is going to lead to A LOT of data.  What are you going to do with it all?

This “problem” is new to biologists and lake management practitioners in the 21st Century.  Decision making in a data “poor” environment has been much more common and indeed is still a real problem.  The “problem” of too much data, really isn’t a problem at all.  Modern computing technology can return only information that is important to you and archive the rest for safe keeping.

With regards to aquatic plant assessment and monitoring in lakes, never before have we been able to rapidly collect and interpret information about how much plants are growing and where.   So, we spend three hours going back and forth on our favorite 230 acre, upload our data to ciBioBase and get a pretty map and some statistics on the density of the vegetation (Figure 1).  So what?  What does it mean?

Figure 1.Example automated summary report from ciBioBase.
Well, admittedly it is difficult to judge whether 78% of the lake being covered with vegetation (PAC) is normal.  What is normal?  This exemplifies the importance of collecting baseline information to judge whether changes from time A or B are significant.

The invasive aquatic plant, Eurasian watermilfoil has a tendency to grow to the surface of lakes, displace native plant species, and impede navigation.  The extent of surface growth and overall cover of Eurasian watermilfoil and other invasive plant species are typically the conditions that lake managers and citizens want to reduce.  ciBioBase provides a rapid and objective way to monitor how cover and surface growth of vegetation is changing as the lake is affected by various stressors and our responses to them (e.g., herbicide treatments).  For instance, often a water resource agency or citizen group will state objectives in a lake management plan something to the effect of “Objective 1: reduce the abundance of Eurasian watermilfoil by 80%.”  What should be asked next is 80% of what? What is our yardstick?  We can’t expect to be successful at water and fisheries resource conservation without clearly defining management targets and evaluating whether we’re getting there.

Furthermore, there is a tight link between water quality and aquatic plant growth.  Clear lakes with all native plant species often have high cover of vegetation, but relatively little surface-growing vegetation (except near shore or in shallow bays).  As more nutrients run into the lake from lawns and parking lots, aquatic plants initially increase in abundance and grow closer to the surface to get sunlight from the clouding water.  If we continue to mow our lawns down to the lake edge, over fertilize, and route water from parking lots and roofs into our lakes unabated, then aquatic plants crash because the water is too turbid to support plant growth.  Next thing you know, largemouth bass, bluegill, and northern pike disappear and you find your lake on the EPA’s Impaired Water’s List and now you need to spend million’s to clean it up.  ciBioBase can be used to prevent you from getting to that point.

One precise way of doing so is to monitor the maximum depth that vegetation grows in your lake.  There is a tight link between water clarity and the depth that plants grow in lakes (Figure 2).  The extent of plant growth integrates the short-term dynamic nature of water clarity and gives a measure of the overall water clarity conditions for the year.  The conventional water clarity monitoring routine involves citizens and lake managers taking a dozen trips a season to the middle of the lake to drop a Secchi disk down and measure the distance where the disk disappears from sight.  With one 3-hr mid-summer ciBioBase survey, you can get a measure of water clarity conditions for the entire season.  This depth should remain relatively consistent from year to year in stable watershed and lake conditions.  A change of two feet over the course of a couple of years should raise a flag that conditions in the lake may be changing and initiate some initial investigation into possible causes.


Figure 2. Relationship between the maximum depth of vegetation growth as a function of water clarity from 33 Minnesota lakes where lakes were mapped with sonar and water clarity data was collected with a Secchi disk.


To bring this discussion full circle, we should ask: how do we know the change in point A or B is due to a real change in lake conditions and not an artifact of our sampling?  This question plagued the 20th Century Lake Manager to the point of gridlock.  In the 21st century, we can overwhelm the question with data to get almost a census of the current conditions rather than a small statistical sample fraught with error.  Lake Managers don’t have to physically wade through all this data to find the answer.  High-powered computers and processing algorithms can do the heavy lifting, the lake manager or concerned citizen can focus on implementing practices that will result in clean water and healthy lake habitats.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Assessing Fish Habitat in Rivers

ciBioBase is not just a lake vegetation mapping tool, it also can help Fisheries managers and researchers assess, monitor, and simulate fish habitat conditions in large rivers.  We demonstrated this application on a trip to the Mississippi River Pool 2 in St. Paul, MN on 4/27/2012.  Just downstream of the Lock and Dam, we used a Lowrance HDS sounder and the automated processing of ciBioBase to map the bathymetry of a pool where a range of fish species often congregate (Figure 1).

Figure 1.  Bottom mapping with a Lowrance HDS-5 on Pool 2 of the Mississippi R. just downstream of the Lock and Dam on 4/27/2012.


The raw pool elevation on 4/27/2012 was 4.27 feet; still within the range of moderate drought according to the US Drought Monitor but 1.7 feet higher than the most recent low on 12/10/2011. Coincidentally, these drought levels follow historic flood levels just one year earlier (Figure 2). To demonstrate ciBioBase’s utility as a fish habitat assessment tool, we compared sizes and volumes of our mapped pool under the hydrologic conditions experienced on Pool 2 during the last year.
 



Figure 2. Hydrograph for the Mississippi River at St. Paul, MN (DNR ID# 20088002; USGS ID# 05331000; Data and figure courtesy of the MN DNR).

On 4/27/2012, we mapped and analyzed a 15-ft pool using the ciBioBase polygon creation tool and determined that the max depth was 17 ft, surface area was 317 m2 and the volume was 1508 m3 (Figure 3).


Figure 3.  Diagnostics of a pool of interest using ciBioBase’s polygon tool.

In order to reconstruct changes to this pool under the recent low flow on December 10th 2011, we used the Z-depth Offset feature in ciBioBase to drop the elevation down 1.7 feet.  In Figure 4, you can see the striking difference this reduction has on the size of this pool and consequently the amount of available fish habitat.  The area on December 10th 2011 was estimated to be 3.1 m2 and volume was 9.4 m3; 100 times smaller in size and 161 times smaller in volume than on 4/27/2012. If we increase the offset by the peak flood elevation on March 30th 2011, the 15-foot hole becomes a 30-foot hole (Figure 5).


Figure 4. Polygon overlay in ciBioBase demonstrating the difference in size and volume of a 15-ft deep hole between the yearly low elevation on 12/10/2011 (pink) and during data collection on 4/27/12 (green).





Figure 5. Polygon overlay of drought elevations in 2012 (green and pink) overlain onto simulated peak flood bathymetry on 3/30/2011.

This demonstrates one potential application of ciBioBase for fish habitat studies in large rivers.  We presented three striking contrasts in fish habitat conditions within one year’s time with data that took 20 minutes to collect and an hour to analyze in ciBioBase. Different hydrological scenarios can be modeled in ciBioBase and thus could be used in predictive fisheries habitat models or to reconstruct habitat conditions over some period of time.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Analysis of Alternative Mapping Methods

Budgets are tight, time is short, labor resources and technical know-how are scarce.  These truths are the motivating force behind the ciBioBase system.  Recently, we ran an analysis that demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of ciBioBase.  We selected 3 peer-reviewed studies that demonstrated three alternative methods for whole lake assessments of vegetation abundance and compared the costs of producing a vegetation biovolume map with ciBioBase.  The first two studies Valley and Drake (2007) and Sabol et al. (2009) used a scientific-grade echosounder, associated software, and required expertise in hydroacoustics and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).  Hardware and software costs were adjusted to 2012 dollars which actually brought costs down to a total of $18,400.  These costs were amortized over 5 years at 5% interest and scaled to daily costs assuming use in a season would not typically exceed 45 days.  For both methods, hardware and software costs amounted to approximately $84 a day.  We did not factor in time on the water for any of these analyses, or the cost of training in hydroacoustics, geostatistics, and GIS.

Labor costs were relatively large in the Valley and Drake (2007) study because the authors were working in environments that exceeded the capability of the vegetation-detecting algorithm they were using.  Specifically, noisy signals generated in surface-growing vegetation canopies were thrown out and thus biasing biovolume (i.e., percent of the water column occupied by vegetation) downward.  Consequently,  Valley and Drake did ping-by-ping verification and reclassification where signals were obscured by surface-growing vegetation.  Summing the modest hardware and high labor costs to manually verify thousands of pings, the cost of producing a vegetation map in a 500-acre lake using methods described in Valley and Drake (2007) was approximately $1,288.

Labor costs were significantly lower in the Sabol et al. (2009) investigation because we assume vegetation did not grow to the surface in the Wisconsin study lake during the investigation and thus the vegetation algorithm processed individual files relatively quickly.  Taking the labor costs (10 hrs @ $25/hr) in Sabol et al. (2009) and adding in adjusted amortized hardware and annual maintenance costs, the costs of producing a map on a 500-acre lake was a much lower $357 compared with Valley and Drake (2007).
The third study evaluated the LAKEWATCH volunteer lake monitoring program administered by the University of Florida.  LAKEWATCH utilizes commercial-grade Lowrance sonar units to log data on bathymetry and vegetation height/biovolume (otherwise known as percent volume inhabited; Hoyer 2009).  Entry-level technicians analyze 100 random points from pooled transect files and record depth and estimate plant height to get a lake-wide estimate of percent area covered by vegetation and percent volume inhabited with aquatic plants.  Although the objective of LAKEWATCH is not to create high resolution vegetation maps, in order to make apples-to-apples comparisons, we had to scale-up the Hoyer (2009) method to reflect the same survey resolution (16,383 points) of the previous two methods.  This resulted in an incredibly high cost of $6,884 to produce the same type of vegetation map as described with the previous two methods.
ciBioBase 
Because we automate the analysis and mapping of vegetation, there is very little labor outside of conducting the survey, save for a recommended hour of reviewing the data after a trip and verifying the output.  Also, the hardware and software costs are minimal because we analyze data from Lowrance HDS-line sonar systems that are coupled with differentially corrected GPS systems and retail for $700-$2200.  Running the same calculations as the other methods, we estimated the per survey day cost of mapping a 500-acre lake was a very low $125; 2.8 times cheaper than the next lowest described by Sabol et al. (2009).

Daily Costs
MethodAmortized HardwareMaint-enanceLaborSubscription CostTotal      Cost
Valley and Drake (2007)$84 $23 $1,181  NA $1,288
Sabol et al. (2009)$84 $23 $250  NA $357
Hoyer (2009)*$3 $0 $6,881  NA $6,884
ciBioBase$3 $0 $25 $97 $125
*High resolution vegetationmapping was not an objective of Hoyer (2009) and thus the following scaled-up cost estimates should be viewed as a hypothetical scenario for an equal comparison to other methods

The low rate of ciBioBase doesn’t consider any of the value-added features of ciBioBase such as:
·       Automation: No training needed in hydroacoustics, geostatistics, or GIS.  Our cloud-based software analyzes patterns in the acoustic signal and uses standard geostatistical techniques to produce accurate maps.
·       Centralization: As data from more systems is uploaded, algorithm performance is continually verified and enhanced.  These enhancements are constantly refined in the cloud and are pushed universally to all users, free of charge.

·       Crowd-sourcing: Multiple subscribers from an organization can contribute their data to an optional shared repository.  Organization members can leverage each other’s efforts and data to produce a single output.

·       Speed: Lowrance sonar units occupy little space on board (and actually are portable!) and come with a skimmer transducer that allows data collection of up to speeds of 10 mph.  As such a 500-acre lake may take half the time to traverse 25 mi of transect compared with methods 1 and 2.

·       Efficiency: Because there’s no “set-up and break down” with our method, hitting “record” is the extent of the effort you need to do to start logging data.  While doing so, you can be collecting other important fisheries, aquatic plant, or water quality data on the lake.
·       Data Visualization and Verification: We offer visual, geospatial tools to replay your trip and verify the automated output.

Log in and see for yourself! Go here and type demo@cibiobase.com for the login email and for the password enter “demo.”  You'll first need Microsoft Silverlight, click here to check to see if you already have it installed on your PC or Mac or need to download it.
Literature Cited
Hoyer, M.V. 2009. Calculations for successful planning. Lakeline Spring 2009: 39-42.
Sabol, B.M., Kannenberg, J., and Skogerboe, J.G. 2009. Integrating acoustic mapping into
              operational aquatic plant management : a case study in Wisconsin. Journal of Aquatic Plant
              Management 44-52.

Valley, R.D. and M.T. Drake 2007. What does resilience of a clear-water state in lakes mean for the spatial heterogeneity of submersed macrophyte biovolume? Aquatic Botany 87: 307-319.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

BioBase Polygon Management Tool!

Contour Innovations (CI) has just launched a new game changing feature with its polygon management tool, currently in Beta!   Anyone that has logged into their account lately may have noticed another tab at the top labeled ‘GIS Management.’   With this tab, BioBase users can take their data analysis and pretreatment assessments to the next level.

Although in development for quite some time, our team has determined that this powerful polygon tool is ready to launch for our users.  The polygon management tool allows subscribers to create a polygon within their data for automated processing and assessment of specific boundaries within an upload.  After you gather Lowrance sonar data and upload it to your ciBioBase account to create a bathymetric and vegetation abundance map, you can determine water volumes, acres, and max and average depths to perform analysis of specific areas of your coverage zone.  You'll know where to focus your management efforts and have accurate details to help with the process.  By using the data you’ve already collected, the power of ciBioBase, and our TIN bathymetry output, you can create polygons and water volume estimates right in your account.  You draw the polygon lines, BioBase does the rest!  And the best part . . there are never additional charges once your data is in the System!

The days of estimating water volumes are over.  Even though we were already providing detailed water volume analysis of the area covered, ciBioBase will now allow you to create and manage your treatment zones and areas of concern in greater detail.  CI is taking lake management and habitat analysis to the next level and automating everything you need to take your collected data full circle.  ciBioBase is all you need!



Log into your account now to check it out!  This feature is available for any trip you’ve already uploaded to the System.  Not a BioBase user yet???  Give us a call to get started!  This feature is a perfect example of how we continue to innovate and make BioBase the best aquatic mapping and habitat software on the Planet.   There are no added costs or upgrade charges, just amazing feature updates.

We’re always interested in your feedback on the polygon analysis tool . . .