Translator Disclaimer
1 January 2017 Geoform and Landform Classification of Continental Shelves using Geospatially Integrated IKONOS Satellite Imagery
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Makowski, C.; Finkl, C.W., and Vollmer, H.M., 2017. Geoform and landform classification of continental shelves using geospatially integrated IKONOS satellite imagery.

Geomorphological characterization of coastal environments along continental shelves depends on accurate interpretation of mesoscale lithic and clastic benthic geoforms and landforms. Using the Geospatially Integrated Seafloor Classification Scheme (G-ISCS), cognitive visual interpretations of seafloor geoforms and their associated landforms were conducted along a diverse segment of the southeast (SE) Florida continental shelf. GeoEye IKONOS-2 satellite imagery provided the remotely sensed visual medium on which interpretations were based. With ESRI ArcGIS® ArcMap software, classification maps were created from the cognitive interpretations to show spatial distribution results of geoform and landform features throughout the study area. Additionally, smaller-scale “call-out figures” documented specific geomorphological associations among the classified units. Analysis attribute tables compared and contrasted the abundance (i.e. number of classifying vector polygons) and calculated areas for each geoform and landform classified. It was determined that classification of geoform and landform benthic features along continental shelves can be achieved where water clarity conditions allow for the cognitive visual interpretation of such seafloor formations. Future studies may build upon the classification of continental shelf geoforms and landforms to integrate more transient biogeomorphological features of the marine environment (e.g., sediment distribution, biological species identification, density of flora and fauna present), thus creating a more detailed and inclusive classification of a selected coastal region.

INTRODUCTION

One of the standard components of classifying continental shelf coastal environments is the demarcation of spatially distributed geomorphological signatures along the seafloor, commonly known as geoforms and landforms. The interpretation of these general-to-specific benthic features provides a “structural framework” of the seascape topology by which a hierarchical census of biophysical units can be compiled for a given shelf region (see, for example, Fairbridge, 2004; Finkl, 2004); the ultimate result then allowing for hierarchical classifications to be extrapolated over large coastal areas and applied to corresponding mapping units. This, in return, would potentially elucidate spatial relationships between geoforms and landforms of a given area by showing how exposed lithic structures, unconsolidated clastic materials, and other geomorphological substrates available to sessile biological communities are universally distributed and interconnected. By accurately interpreting geoform and landform-based formations over a select region of continental shelf, the delineation of coastal environments and creation of a comprehensive geospatially referenced classification map can be achieved (e.g., Achatz, Finkl, and Paulus, 2009; Finkl and Banks, 2010; Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews, 2004, 2005a,b; Finkl and Vollmer, 2011; Lidz, Reich, and Shinn, 2003; Lidz et al., 2006; Makowski, 2014; Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2015, 2016; Steimle and Finkl, 2011).

In the past few decades, multispectral satellite senor images have been among the most preferred mediums by which visual interpretation of coastal environments are carried out (e.g., Andréfouët et al., 2001, 2003; Bouvet, Ferraris, and Andréfouët, 2003; Dial et al., 2003; Dobson and Dustan, 2000; Finkl, Makowski, and Vollmer, 2014; Finkl and Vollmer, 2011; Hochberg, Andréfouët, and Tyler, 2003; Klemas, 2011; Klemas and Yan, 2014; Makowski and Finkl, 2016; Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2015, 2016; Manson et al., 2001; Mumby and Edwards, 2002; Palandro et al., 2003; Steimle and Finkl, 2011). Specifically, GeoEye IKONOS-2 satellite images can offer an enhanced view of benthic geomorphological features along those continental shelf regions where optimal water clarity permits it. In conjunction with specialized spatial analysis software applications, such as ESRI's ArcGIS® 10.3 ArcMap program, IKONOS-2 images provide the visual means to cognitively identify, delineate, and classify seafloor geoforms and landforms along coastal shelf environments.

The objective of this study was to cognitively interpret, classify, and map geoforms and associated landforms along a segment of the southeast (SE) Florida continental shelf (Figure 1) using IKONOS-2 satellite imagery and the Geospatially Integrated Seafloor Classification Scheme (G-ISCS) method (Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2015). By doing so, analysis of geomorphological attributes can aid in determining how the “structural framework” over a given shelf area is spatially distributed and interrelated. Overall, the goal is to potentially expand upon the results presented in this paper, as well as other studies (e.g., Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2016), in an effort to create an inclusive classification of this continental shelf segment by integrating more transient biogeomorphological features of the marine environment (e.g., sediment distribution, biological species identification, density of flora and fauna present) with larger-scale physiographic realms and morphodynamic process zones.

Figure 1. 

LANDSAT satellite imagery zoomed in over the southern region of peninsular Florida, U.S.A. The red polygon outlines the segment of continental shelf used in this study. Included in the area of investigation is a diverse mix of coastal environments, including highly urbanized Miami, Florida; the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS); Everglades National Park; Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve; Biscayne Bay National Park; and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. Source: Google™ Earth (2015).

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f01.tif

METHODS

GeoEye IKONOS-2 (i.e. IKONOS-2) multispectral satellite images were acquired, processed, and visually interpreted using the study methods derived from the Geospatially Integrated Seafloor Classification Scheme (G-ISCS), as developed by Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer (2015). Specialized processing software (IDRISI© Taiga, Clark Labs, Worcester, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; Environmental Systems Research Institute's [ESRI] ArcGIS 10.3 ArcMap geographical information system program, Redlands, California, U.S.A.) allowed for appropriate digital enhancement techniques to the IKONOS-2 images, which then provided the required raster-based GIS and image processing modules for cognitive interpretation.

Using the G-ISCS method, each geoform and associated landforms were interpreted in tandem to describe the benthic substrate framework by which surface sediments accumulate upon and biological communities grow (Table 1). For example, in the case of the Coral Reef Geoform, which contains ridge-like structures throughout the Florida Reef Tract (FRT) Physiographic Realm built from living coral, coral skeletons, calcareous algae, mollusks, and protozoans, the corresponding landforms of Barrier Reef, Patch Reef, Aggregated Reef, Coral Apron, and Reef Gap were found (Banks et al., 2007; Cronin et al., 1981; Finkl, 2004; Finkl and Andrews, 2008; Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews, 2005a; Finkl et al., 2008; Hoffmeister, 1974; Jaap, 1984; Lidz, 2004, 2006; Lidz, Hine, and Shinn, 1991; Lidz et al., 1997). Hardbottom Geoforms, conversely, are exposed Pleistocene limestone (e.g., bedrock, boulders, rubble), including reef debris and dredged spoil piles, that are found intermittently in the Atlantic Ocean Morphodynamic Zones, Hawk Channel Physiographic Realm, Biscayne Bay Physiographic Realm, and along the leeward and windward sides of the Florida Keys Physiographic Realm (Chiappone and Sullivan, 1994; Finkl, 2004; Finkl et al., 2008; Lidz et al., 2006). Associated Hardbottom landforms include flat, generally featureless, continuous platforms in the form of Subtidal Pavement and conically shaped Rubble Fields and Dredged Spoil Piles (Buddemeier, Smith, and Kinzie, 1975; Finkl et al., 2008; Lidz et al., 2006; Lirman and Fong, 1997; Selkoe et al., 2009). When Islands associated with the coral and mud-based Florida Keys Physiographic Realm archipelago are classified as the predominant geoform, the resultant landforms include Bay Key, Karst Island, and Salina (Finkl, 2004; Hoffmeister, 1974; Lidz, Hine, and Shinn, 1991; Lidz et al., 1997; Nunn, 1994). Sediment Flat Geoforms, which constitute extensive, unconsolidated seafloor sediments composed of sand and mud combinations, are divided among the landforms of Intertidal Sand Flat and Planar Bed Forms and Ripples (Davis, Hine, and Shinn, 1992; Duane and Meisburger, 1969; Finkl, 2004; Finkl and Andrews, 2008; Finkl and Warner, 2005; Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews, 2005b; Finkl et al., 2008; Hoffmeister, 1974; Lidz, Hine, and Shinn, 1991; Lidz, Robbin, and Shinn, 1985). The geoform of Dune and Beach is a geomorphologically coupled coastal system consisting of Holocene dune fields, foredunes, and beach berms. The associated landforms include Bay Beach and Ocean Beach (Finkl, 1993, 2004; Finkl and Restrepo-Coupe, 2007; Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews, 2006; Hoffmeister, 1974; Wright and Short, 1984). Ridge Fields are geoforms where continental shelf sand waves display parallel long-axis alignment on sandy seafloors and contain landforms that are designated as either Discrete Ridges or Complex Ridges (Ashley, 1990; Duane and Meisburger, 1969; Finkl, 2004; Finkl and Andrews, 2008; Finkl, Andrews, and Benedet, 2006; Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews, 2005b; Finkl et al., 2007, 2008; Stapor, 1982). Channel Geoforms are low relief, elongated tidal conduits cut into seafloor bank sediments or karst bedrock. The associated landforms are Neochannel, Paleochannel, and Seafloor Channel (Davis and Fitzgerald, 2004; Finkl, 2004; Finkl and Andrews, 2008; Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews, 2005b; Finkl et al., 2008; Hoffmeister, 1974; Lidz, 2006; Lidz, Hine, and Shinn, 1991; Lidz, Robbin, and Shinn, 1985; Lidz et al., 1997, 2006). Deltas are depositional geoforms produced from the shoaling sedimentation of paleochannel tidal passes. Representative landforms include Ebb-Tidal Deltas and Flood-Tidal Deltas (Davis and Fitzgerald, 2004; Davis, Hine, and Shinn, 1992; Finkl and Andrews, 2008; Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews, 2005b; Finkl et al., 2008; Lidz, Hine, and Shinn, 1991; Schwartz, 2005). The final geoform identified was categorized as the Peninsula and Coastal Plain, which includes the low-lying marshlands of the Everglades within the Southeast Distal Florida Physiographic Realm and such morphodynamic zones as Tree Island Biohydrologic Systems, Marsh Prairie Regimes, Mangrove Forest Biomes, and Everglades Swampland Systems (Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2016). Landforms include Intertidal Mud Flat, Supratidal Mud Flat, and Anthropogenic Modified Coastal Plain (Finkl, 1994; Finkl and Makowski, 2013; Finkl and Restrepo-Coupe, 2007; Finkl et al., 2008; Gorsline, 1963; Hoffmeister, 1974; White, 1970). Locations, definitions, and descriptions of all interpreted geoforms and associated landforms along the continental shelf study area are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. 

Definitions table for geoforms and associated landforms along the SE Florida continental shelf, including locations, definitions, descriptions, and references.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-t01.eps

For the purposes of onscreen cognitive interpretation of geoforms and landforms, enhanced IKONOS-2 satellite images were imported into ESRI's ArcGIS 10.3 ArcMap program and displayed on a 1.2 m interactive SmartBoard® overlay system. This allowed for the real-time, onscreen digitization of geoform and landform features based on varying color tones, saturations, textures, and relative spectral reflectance signatures. Closed vector polygons were drawn around areas of similar visual composition, thereby cognitively delineating the boundaries of specific geoforms and landforms as defined in Table 1. A nominal scale of 1:6000 was selected when cognitively digitizing boundaries, as no minimum mapping unit (MMU) was designated for this study. Individual geoform and landform thematic-layered maps, along with associated legends, were created, with vector polygons being assigned a specific classifying color that corresponded to the appropriate cognitive interpretation mapping unit.

Attribute tables of all interpreted geoforms and landforms were complied for the purpose of analysis and directly corresponded to the cognitively digitized polygons. By doing so, a multitude of spatially queried information, including the areal extents of each classified geoform and landform, could be stored for further investigation and analysis.

RESULTS

Application of the previously described methods resulted in a classification of possible geoforms and landforms occurring along the SE Florida continental shelf. In addition to providing full-extent area maps showing the distribution of cognitively interpreted geoforms and landforms, those classifying units that recorded the highest and lowest number of vector polygons, as well as the greatest and smallest calculated areas, are reported. Furthermore, smaller-scale call-out figures are shown to provide side-by-side results of IKONOS-2 image interpretation by comparing annotated images with those containing superimposed color coded classifying units.

An amalgamation of 14 GeoEye IKONOS-2 satellite scenes resulted in a platform of high-resolution, multispectral images for the purposes of classifying 1407.4 km2 of the study area. A total of 3888 cognitive vector delineations were interpreted from the IKONOS-2 imagery (Figure 2). The boundaries of nine (9) geoforms and 24 associated landforms, with corresponding legends, are shown with color-assigned visual representations exported from ArcMap (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 2. 

Exported view of cognitive delineation results from interpreting enhanced IKONOS-2 satellite imagery. Of the 3888 vector polygons digitally created in the study area (outlined in magenta), note the increase in complexity of benthic features with the westward distance offshore of the Florida Keys and toward the Florida Reef Tract (FRT). Conversely, nearshore rock shelves, sediment flats, and offshore banks display more monotypic patterns of benthic habitats. A nominal scale of 1:230,000 was set for this image export out of ArcMap.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f02.tif

Figure 3. 

Geographic representation of geoforms from the interpreted IKONOS-2 satellite imagery (viz. Figure 2). The legend identifies nine (9) geoforms classified from the imagery and are color coded to show the spatial relationships among them. The broader-scale geoforms allow for a more detailed delineation with associated landforms (viz. Figure 4). A nominal scale of 1:230,000 was set for this image export out of ArcMap.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f03.tif

Figure 4. 

Geographic distribution of landforms as interpreted from IKONOS-2 satellite imagery, subdividing the larger-scale geoforms (viz. Figure 3). The legend provides a color distinction for each classified landform interpreted from the imagery (viz. Figure 2) and allows for visual understanding of spatial parameters, as related to the 24 landforms identified. This image export was set at a 1:230,000 nominal scale within the layout view feature of ArcMap.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f04.tif

Among all the classifying units, the Coral Reef Geoform and associated Patch Reef Landform recorded the highest number of cognitively delineated vector polygons, with 2823 and 2705, respectively. The lowest number of vector polygons were tallied by Delta Geoforms (n = 5) and the Ebb-Tidal Delta Landform (n = 2). Additionally, the Sediment Flat Geoform and associated Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform recorded the greatest total areas, with 692.3 km2 and 681.5 km2, respectively, while the Dune and Beach Geoform (1.4 km2) and associated Bay Beach Landform (0.1 km2) recorded the smallest total areas. Figures 5 through 14 illustrate specific small-scale results when applying geoform and landform classifying units to the raw, uninterpreted IKONOS-2 satellite imagery.

Figure 5. 

In order to interpret and classify the separate components of the Coral Reef Geoform, the left panel shows associated landform examples of Barrier Reef, Patch Reef, Aggregated Reef, Coral Apron, and Reef Gap within the IKONOS-2 satellite image. The right panel overlays color coordinated classification units, as show in the legend, on top of the IKONOS-2 to visually demonstrate the spatial distribution of landforms. In addition to the colors and units provided in the legend, yellow areas in the right panel represent the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform, which is a subclassification unit of the Sediment Flat Geoform. The blacked out portion on the right-hand side of both panels represents where the water depth exceeded the threshold by which the IKONOS-2 sensor could visually register any benthic spectral signatures. The satellite image and interpretive overlay panel were exported out of ArcMap program at a nominal scale of 1:24,000 within the layout view feature.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f05.tif

Figure 6. 

Example of the Hardbottom Geoform in relation the Port of Miami. The IKONOS-2 satellite image in the left panel shows the benthic signature differences between the Subtidal Pavement Landform versus the Rubble Fields and Dredged Spoil Piles Landform, while the right panel overlays color coded classification units to visually demonstrate the interpreted features. In addition to the colors and units provided in the legend, yellow areas in the right panel represent the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform, which is a subclassification unit of the Sediment Flat Geoform, and tan areas represent the Anthropogenic Modified Coastal Plain Landform associated with the Port of Miami. Both panels were exported out of ArcMap at a nominal scale of 1:8000 within the layout view feature.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f06.tif

Figure 7. 

Detailed example showing visual spectral characteristics of the IKONOS-2 imagery (left panel) when identifying the Island Geoform and the associated landform examples of Bay Key, Karst Island, and Salina in relation to Biscayne Bay. The right panel overlays landform classification units assigned by color to visually demonstrate spatial distribution of interpreted features. In addition to the colors and units provided in the legend, yellow areas in the right panel represent the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform, which is a subclassification unit of the Sediment Flat Geoform; orange areas represent Paleochannel Landforms; and teal areas represent Flood-Tidal Delta Landforms. The sharp contrast in the top left-hand corner of the left panel is indicative of merging two separate IKONOS-2 satellite images from the same sampling area. Both panels were exported out of ArcMap in the layout view feature at a nominal scale of 1:8000.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f07.tif

Figure 8. 

Zoomed in example of an IKONOS-2 satellite image (left panel) and the superimposed classifying units (right panel) that represent the breakdown of the Sediment Flat Geoform into two (2) associated landforms: Intertidal Sand Flat and Planar Bed Forms and Ripples. The Intertidal Sand Flat Landform occasionally breaches the water's surface in relation to the tides, whereas the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform constitutes the majority of the surrounding benthos. A nominal scale of 1:9000 was used for both panels exported out of ArcMap.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f08.tif

Figure 9. 

Detailed example of two (2) landforms associated within the Dune and Beach Geoform in relation to Biscayne Bay and Hawk Channel. Spectral reflectance patterns in the left panel (IKONOS-2 image) show the terrestrial and supratidal signatures of both the Bay Beach Landform and Ocean Beach Landform. The right panel contains color coded mapping units from the landform legend (viz. Figure 4) that are an interpretation of the left panel, where classifications are placed on top of the satellite imagery for visual comparison and analysis. In addition to the colors and units provided in the legend above, yellow areas in the right panel represent the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform, which is a subclassification unit of the Sediment Flat Geoform; orange areas represent Paleochannel Landforms; dark purple areas represent Karst Island Landforms; light purple areas represent Intertidal Sand Flat Landforms; dark blue areas represent Subtidal Pavement Landforms; light green areas represent Rubble Fields and Dredged Spoil Pile Landforms; and tan areas represent the Anthropogenic Modified Coastal Plain Landform. Both panels were exported out of ArcMap at a nominal scale of 1:20,000 within the layout view feature.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f09.tif

Figure 10. 

Detailed example showing distinctive spectral reflectance patterns for landforms associated with Coral Reef, Sediment Flat, Hardbottom, and Ridge Field Geoforms. The largest benthic feature identified in the left panel is the Complex Ridge Landform, which is located between the Hardbottom Geoforms of Hawk Channel and the Barrier and Patch Reef Landforms of the Florida Reef Tract (FRT). Notice how the high-resolution of the IKONOS-2 imagery is able to capture the characteristic crisscrossing pattern along the seafloor. The right panel overlays color-assigned classification units on top of the satellite imagery to visually demonstrate the distribution of landforms along the benthos. In addition to Complex Ridges, yellow areas in the right panel represent the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform, which is a subclassification unit of the Sediment Flat Geoform; dark blue areas represent Subtidal Pavement Landforms; dark red areas represent Patch Reef Landforms; and bright red areas represent Barrier Reef Landforms. Both panels were exported out of ArcMap at a nominal scale of 1:19,000 within the layout view feature.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f10.tif

Figure 11. 

Detailed example of Channel Geoform interpretations using IKONOS-2 satellite imagery. The left panel shows the identification of associated landforms, which include Neochannel and Paleochannel, while the right panel overlays mapping units of specific color (viz. Figure 4) on top of the satellite imagery to visually demonstrate spatial dynamics. In addition to the colors and units provided in the legend above, yellow areas in the right panel represent the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform, which is a subclassification unit of the Sediment Flat Geoform; dark purple areas represent Karst Island Landforms; and dark blue areas represent Subtidal Pavement Landforms. A nominal scale of 1:16,000 was used for both panels when exported out of ArcMap.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f11.tif

Figure 12. 

Detailed example of a Channel Geoform (as interpreted by the Seafloor Channel Landform) in relation to the Sediment Flat Geoform (as interpreted by the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform) in Biscayne Bay. The left panel shows the high-resolution IKONOS-2 satellite image by which the color coded classification units were overlaid (right panel). The sharp contrast along the top portion of the left panel is indicative of merging two separate IKONOS-2 satellite images from the same sampling area. Both panels were exported out of ArcMap at a nominal scale of 1:20,000 within the layout view feature.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f12.tif

Figure 13. 

Detailed example of IKONOS-2 satellite imagery (left panel) showing the two (2) landforms associated with the Delta Geoform, along with surrounding features. The left panel shows Ebb-Tidal Delta Landforms and Flood-Tidal Delta Landforms, while the right panel represents interpreted distribution of features by overlaying color coded mapping units from the landform legend (viz. Figure 4) on top of the satellite imagery. In addition to the colors and units provided in the legend above, yellow areas in the right panel represent the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform, which is a subclassification unit of the Sediment Flat Geoform; orange areas represent Paleochannel Landforms; dark purple areas represent Karst Island Landforms; brown areas represent Bay Key Landforms; and grey areas represent the Salina Landform. The sharp contrast in the top left-hand corner of the left panel is indicative of merging two separate IKONOS-2 satellite images from the same sampling area. A nominal scale of 1:23,000 was used for both panels exported out of ArcMap.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f13.tif

Figure 14. 

Detailed example of three (3) landforms associated within the Peninsula and Coastal Plain Geoform in relation to Card Sound. Spectral reflectance patterns in the left panel (IKONOS-2 image) show the gradational transition coalescence of the Supratidal Mud Flat Landform into the Intertidal Mud Flat Landform. Also shown is an example of the urbanized Anthropogenic Modified Coastal Plain Landform. The right panel contains color coded mapping units that are an interpretation of the left panel, where classifications are placed on top of the satellite imagery for visual comparison. In addition to the colors and units provided in the legend above, yellow areas in the right panel represent the Planar Bed Forms and Ripples Landform, which is a subclassification unit of the Sediment Flat Geoform. Both panels were exported out of ArcMap at a nominal scale of 1:18,000 within the layout view feature.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f14.tif

ANALYSIS

Analysis of interpreted geoforms along the SE Florida continental shelf showed that the Coral Reef Geoform was among the most optimal for cognitive recognition in the IKONOS-2 imagery. When compared with other geoforms identified, Coral Reef recorded the greatest quantity of vector polygons, with over 72% of the overall total, but only constituted less than 10% of the total study area (Table 2). This was possible because of specific recognition of color, tone, texture, pattern, and spectral reflectance from the Coral Reef Geoform benthic signatures allowing for a more precise delineation without grossly overestimating the size of such features along the seafloor.

Table 2. 

Quantity of cognitively classified vector polygons (n) and calculated areas (km2) for nine geoforms interpreted from the IKONOS-2 satellite imagery. Each individual percentage from the total is listed in brackets below.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-t02.eps

Further examination of the landforms associated with the Coral Reef Geoform shows that geomorphological recognition of Patch Reef was the most optimal. With nearly 70% of all the vector polygons drawn in the study area and less than 2% of the total area classified (Table 3), Patch Reef Landform interpretation can be considered precise due to specific tone, hue, and spectral reflectance differences when the sunlight hits the sand or seagrass halos that usually surround these isolated reef patches. The IKONOS-2 imagery provides the visual means to discern these differences when interpreting the various landforms associated with geoforms such as Coral Reefs (Figure 15).

Table 3. 

Quantity of cognitively classified vector polygons (n) and calculated areas (km2) for seven selected landforms interpreted from the IKONOS-2 satellite imagery. Each individual percentage from the total is listed in brackets below.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-t03.eps

Figure 15. 

Detailed example showing the advanced level of recognition in Patch Reef Landforms, constituting a subdivision of the Coral Reef Geoform, as seen in the high-resolution IKONOS-2 satellite imagery. The cognitively interpreted magenta lines highlight the optimal level of color, tone, texture, pattern, and bottom spectral reflectance shown in IKONOS-2 imagery for Patch Reef Landform identification. This image was exported out of ArcMap within the layout view feature at a nominal scale of 1:14,000.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f15.tif

When analyzing the Hardbottom Geoform, a greater recognition of structural textures and color saturations was shown for Subtidal Pavement Landforms. This is because distinct tones and spectral reflectance of the rigid exposed Pleistocene limestone outcrops allowed for a higher level of textural contrast and color saturation characteristics to be identified in the IKONOS-2 imagery and demarcated along the seabottom. Similarly, Bay Key and Karst Island Landforms, both associated with the Island Geoform, showed individual recognition from one another during cognitive interpretation. Specific visual cues in the IKONOS-2 imagery allowed for identification of small, compact mud islands (i.e. Bay Key) versus those main islands formed from oolitic grainstone, fossil coral reef rock, and coquina shell bedrock (i.e. Karst Island). However, analysis of landforms associated with the Sediment Flat Geoform showed that Planar Bed Forms and Ripples were grossly recognizable within the IKONOS-2 imagery mainly because of the general tone and spectral reflectance of the unconsolidated materials. This then provided a basis for large-scale differentiation of seafloor sedimentary deposits versus rigid, hard structures, such as reef or hardbottom. Further analysis of unconsolidated materials in the IKONOS-2 imagery allowed for the detection of shelf sand waves, also known as Ridge Field Geoforms, and the discernment between those landforms oriented in the same direction (i.e. Discrete Ridges) and those forming a crisscrossing pattern of ridge and swale topography along the seafloor (i.e. Complex Ridges). This is because the spectral reflectance of light and the contrasting pattern of shadows along the benthic plane allow for interpretation of Discrete Ridges, which are aligned along one axis, versus Complex Ridges, which form along more than one axis to create a compound field of ridges (Figure 16).

Figure 16. 

IKONOS-2 satellite image showing the color, tone, and bottom spectral reflectance patterns to identify Ridge Field Geoform areas. The red circle is drawn around a Complex Ridge Landform feature. This interpretation was made because of the benthic sand waves forming a crisscrossing pattern of ridge and swale topography along the seafloor, thereby appearing along more than one axis to create a compound field of ridges. The sharp contrast along the top portion of the figure is indicative of merging two separate IKONOS-2 satellite images from the same sampling area. The blacked out portion on the right-hand side of the image represents where the water depth exceeded the threshold by which the IKONOS-2 sensor could visually register any benthic spectral signatures. This image was exported out of ArcMap at a nominal scale of 1:21,000 within the layout view feature.

i1551-5036-33-1-1-f16.tif

DISCUSSION

Using GeoEye IKONOS-2 satellite imagery and the Geospatially Integrated Seafloor Classification Scheme (G-ISCS) method, cognitive interpretation of continental shelf geoforms and associated landforms was conducted over a coastal segment off SE Florida. Classification of benthic components along continental shelves is predicated upon the interpretation of these standard geomorphological structural frameworks known as geoforms and landforms. The identification of such spatially distributed biophysical features potentially allows coastal researchers and resource managers to bridge the classification of larger-scale physiographic realms and morphodynamic process zones (Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2016) with more temporally influenced characteristics, such as unconsolidated sediment accumulations (e.g., sand, mud), sessile biological assemblages (e.g., scleractinian coral growth), and flora proliferations (e.g., seagrass and macroalgae cover). Hierarchical approaches to continental shelf classification prove to be most effective in locations where optimal water clarity is present, for example, along the coast of SE Florida. In addition to exhibiting favorable visual properties of the water column, the continental shelf off SE Florida contains a diverse mix of coastal environments (e.g., highly urbanized Miami, Florida; Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS); Everglades National Park; Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve; Biscayne Bay National Park; John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park) in which numerous geoforms and landforms could be identified and delineated along the seafloor.

Previous studies have attempted to interpret and classify benthic geoform and landform attributes in marine environments using various remotely sensed platforms (e.g., Ansari et al., 2014; Costello, 2009; Finkl and Andrews, 2008; Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews, 2005a,b; Finkl and DaPrato, 1993; Finkl and Vollmer, 2011; Finkl and Warner, 2005; Greene et al., 1999; Heap and Harris, 2008; Kouchi and Yamazaki, 2007; Lidz et al., 2006; Madden et al., 2008; Steimle and Finkl, 2011; Valentine, Cochrane, and Scanlon, 2003; Wedding and Friedlander, 2008). For example, Finkl and Andrews (2008) and Finkl, Benedet, and Andrews (2005a,b) interpreted discrete geomorphological features within a 600 km2 area of continental shelf along SE Florida using laser airborne depth sounder (LADS) imagery. They were able to successfully show geospatial relationships that included barrier coral reefs, nearshore bedrock, and morphosedimentary features by visually mapping the airborne laser bathymetry images as continuous sequences of geoform and landform signatures. By doing so, the geomorpholoical features of a continental shelf region were interpreted and classified in a way never before attempted with LADS imagery.

Other investigations involving the assessment of coastal marine environments have exclusively used IKONOS satellite imagery as the visual basis for their results (e.g., Andréfouët et al., 2003; Dial et al., 2003; Finkl, Makowski, and Vollmer, 2014; Finkl and Vollmer, 2011; Hochberg, Andréfouët, and Tyler, 2003; Klemas, 2011; Maeder et al., 2002; Makowski, 2014; Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2015, 2016; Mumby and Edwards, 2002; Palandro et al., 2003; Steimle and Finkl, 2011). Andréfouët et al. (2003) and Mumby and Edwards (2002) were among the first to examine the benefits of applying IKONOS satellite imagery for mapping shallow-water nearshore environments and concluded that such imagery could be used to accurately map at geomorphological spatial scales where coral, algal, and seagrass habitats exist. These findings helped to justify the use of IKONOS satellite images as a means to properly interpret and classify geomorphological features in marine environments. Finkl and Vollmer (2011) were able to apply that principle by incorporating multiple IKONOS satellite imagery scenes of the southern Key West National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, U.S.A., to identify over 90 mapping units that were defined in terms of geomorphologic base, geoform and landform zones (e.g., reef flats, forereef, patch reef, lagoon), biological communities (e.g., seagrass beds, macroalgae coverage, coral overgrowth), and the percentage of biological cover. Similarly, Maeder et al. (2002) used the blue, green, and red spectral bands from IKONOS images in one fixed location off of Roatan Island, Honduras, Central America, to map the biophysical features of a nearshore coral reef. Both of these studies proved that the texture, pattern, and structure of typical marine environments found in clear waters could be interpreted and mapped using high-resolution IKONOS imagery. Furthermore, IKONOS-2 satellite imagery has been considered among the most effective visual mediums when delineating the benthic seascape into major geoforms and smaller, individual landform units (Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2015, 2016; Mumby and Edwards, 2002).

For this study, classification maps were created in ArcMap to visually represent the spatial distribution of geoform and landform features along the continental shelf by superimposing color coded units over interpreted IKONOS-2 satellite images. As shown in this paper's analysis, IKONOS-2 image scenes provided optimal recognition qualities (i.e. color, tone, texture, pattern, saturation, and relative spectral reflectance) that permitted suitable cognitive interpretation of the marine benthos, especially when attempting to interpret those environments offshore in deeper water. Typically, other lower-resolution satellite imagery (e.g., LANDSAT Thematic Mapper) become less effective in depths exceeding 15–18 m because light penetration (i.e. attenuation of the reflected spectral signal) and underwater clarity (due to increased turbidity) becomes restricted throughout the water column (Makowski, 2014; Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer, 2016; Mumby and Edwards, 2002). Conversely, the IKONOS-2 images visually penetrate in deeper waters offshore to interpret major geomorphologcial signatures of submerged environments without serious degradation of tone, texture, and pattern signatures. A prime example of such optimal visual properties was seen from the results of this study when the Coral Reef Geoform was identified and further delineated into the individual Barrier Reef, Patch Reef, Aggregated Reef, Coral Apron, and Reef Gap landforms (Figure 5). Overall, this study showed that IKONOS-2 images were suitable for the cognitive interpretation for geoforms and landforms along the continental shelf, as shown by the net result of 3888 vector polygons being drawn to demarcate the geomorphological framework of the region (Figure 2). Even though at deeper depths (i.e. greater than 50 m) the bottom reflectance signal is completely absorbed by the water column, IKONOS-2 images still provided enough detail for coastal (terrestrial) and benthic marine environment recognition along the continental shelf to complete the perceived geoform and landform classification over the study area.

As a census of geoform and landform attributes is interpreted, mapped, and ultimately compiled into a central database, it is postulated that a true hierarchical classification of a specific region begins to form when these attributes link larger-scale units (i.e. physiographic realms and morphodynamic zones) with smaller, more temporally influenced benthic features (e.g., dominant sediment, dominant biological cover). For this particular study area, Makowski, Finkl, and Vollmer (2016) have already reported an interpretation of physiographic realms and morphodynamic zones. Therefore, when the geoform and landform data from this study are added to those previous datasets, a true representation of the geomorphological framework along the continental shelf begins to take form. Future studies may contribute sediment and biological classification units, along with ranges in coverage, which would then provide an inclusive geo-referenced spatial database for the continental shelf region.

CONCLUSIONS

This study verified that cognitive interpretation, classification, and mapping of benthic geoforms and associated landforms can be accomplished along the SE Florida continental shelf using GeoEye IKONOS-2 satellite imagery. Through geomorphological attribute analysis, the spatial distribution, quantity of occurrence, and approximate area of each interpreted geoform and landform feature was determined. Using the Geospatially Integrated Seafloor Classification Scheme (G-ISCS) method in tandem with IKONOS-2 imagery and ESRI ArcGIS ArcMap software, classification maps helped conclude where the distribution of specific geoform and landform biogeomorphological signatures occurred along the seafloor throughout the continental shelf region.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special appreciation goes to the Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. (CERF) and to the GeoEye Foundation®, both of which provided logistical and financial support for this research. Individual acknowledgments are given to those external peer reviewers for their suggestions of improvement.

LITERATURE CITED

1.

Achatz, V.; Finkl, C.W., and Paulus, G., 2009. Semiautomatic detection and validation of geomorphic seafloor features using laser airborne depth sounding (LADS). In:Pereira da Silva, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Coastal Symposium (ICS). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 56, pp. 1464–1468. Google Scholar

2.

Andréfouët, S.; Kramer, P.; Torres-Pulliza, D.; Joyce, K.E.; Hochberg, E.J.; Garza-Perez, R.; Mumby, P.J.; Riegl, B.; Yamano, H.; White, W.H.; Zubia, M.; Brock, J.C.; Phinn, S.R.; Naseer, A.; Hatcher, B.G., and Muller-Karger, F.E., 2003. Multi-site evaluation of IKONOS data for classification of tropical coral reef environments. Remote Sensing of Environment, 88, 128–143. Google Scholar

3.

Andréfouët, S.; Muller-Karger, F.; Hochberg, E.; Hu, C., and Carder, K., 2001. Change detection in shallow coral reef environments using Landsat7 ETM+ data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 79, 150–162. Google Scholar

4.

Ansari, Z.; Seyfabadi, J.; Owfi, F.; Rahimi, M., and Allee, R., 2014. Ecological classification of southern intertidal zones of Qeshm Island, based on CMECS model. Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences, 13(1), 1–19. Google Scholar

5.

Ashley, G.M., 1990. Classification of large-scale subaqueous bedforms: A new look at an old problem-SEPM bedforms and bedding structures. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 60(1), 160–172. Google Scholar

6.

Banks, K.W.; Riegl, B.M.; Shinn, E.A.; Piller, W.E., and Dodge, R.E., 2007. Geomorphology of the southeast Florida continental reef tract (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, USA). Coral Reefs, 26, 617–633. Google Scholar

7.

Biber, P.D., 2007. Hydrodynamic transport of drifting macroalgae through a tidal cut. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 74(3), 565–569. Google Scholar

8.

Bouvet, G.; Ferraris, J., and Andréfouët, S., 2003. Evaluation of large-scale unsupervised classification of New Caledonia reef ecosystems using Landsat 7 ETM+ imagery. Oceanologica Acta, 26(3), 281–290. Google Scholar

9.

Buddemeier, R.W.; Smith, S.V., and Kinzie, R.A., 1975. Holocene windward reef-flat history, Enewetak Atoll. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 86(11), 1581–1584. Google Scholar

10.

Chiappone, M. and Sullivan, K.M., 1994. Ecological structure and dynamics of nearshore hard-bottom communities in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science, 54(3), 747–756. Google Scholar

11.

Costello, M.J., 2009. Distinguishing marine habitat classification concepts for ecological data management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 397, 253–268. Google Scholar

12.

Cronin, T.M.; Szabo, B.J.; Ager, T.A.; Hazel, J.E., and Owens, J.P., 1981. Quaternary climates and sea levels of the U.S. Atlantic coastal plain. Science, 211, 233–240. Google Scholar

13.

da Fontoura Klein, A.H. ; L., BenedetFilho, and D.H., Schumacher, 2002. Short-term beach rotation processes in distinct headland bay beach systems. Journal of Coastal Research, 18(3), 442–458. Google Scholar

14.

Davis, R.A. and Fitzgerald, D.M., 2004. Beaches and Coasts. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 419p. Google Scholar

15.

Davis, R.A.; Hine, A.C., and Shinn, E.A., 1992. Holocene coastal development on the Florida peninsula. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, 48, 193. Google Scholar

16.

Dial, G.; Bowen, H.; Gerlach, F.; Grodecki, J., and Oleszczuk, R., 2003. IKONOS satellites, imagery, and products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 88(1–2), 23–36. Google Scholar

17.

Dobson, E.L. and Dustan, P., 2000. The use of satellite imagery for detection of shifts in coral reef communities. Proceedings, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. (Washington, D.C.), [CD-ROM]. Google Scholar

18.

Duane, D.B. and Meisburger, E.P., 1969. Geomorphology and Sediments of the Nearshore Continental Shelf Miami to Palm Beach, Florida. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CERC Technical Memorandum 29, 47p. Google Scholar

19.

Enos, P., 1989. Islands in the bay: A key habitat of Florida Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science, 44(1), 365–386. Google Scholar

20.

Fairbridge, R.W., 2004. Classification of coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1), 155–165. Google Scholar

21.

Finkl, C.W., 1993. Pre-emptive strategies for enhanced sand bypassing and beach replenishment activities: A geological perspective. In: Mehta, A.J. (ed.), Beach/Processes and Management: A Florida Perspective. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 18, pp. 59–89. Google Scholar

22.

Finkl, C.W., 1994. Disaster mitigation in the South Atlantic Coastal Zone (SACZ): A prodrome for mapping hazards and coastal land systems using the example of urban subtropical southeastern Florida. In: Finkl, C.W. (ed.), Coastal Hazards: Perception, Susceptibility, and Mitigation. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 12, pp. 339–366. Google Scholar

23.

Finkl, C.W., 2004. Coastal classification: Systematic approaches to consider in the development of a comprehensive scheme. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(1), 166–213. Google Scholar

24.

Finkl, C.W. and Andrews, J.L., 2008. Shelf geomorphology along the southeast Florida Atlantic continental platform: Barrier coral reefs, nearshore bedrock, and morphosedimentary features. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(4), 823–849. Google Scholar

25.

Finkl, C.W. and Banks, K.W., 2010. Mapping seafloor topography based on interpretation of airborne laser bathymetry: Examples from the southeast Florida Atlantic continental shelf. In: Martorino, L. and Puopolo, K. (eds.), New Oceanography Research Developments: Marine Chemistry, Ocean Floor Analyses, and Marine Phytoplankton. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 163–187. Google Scholar

26.

Finkl, C.W.; Andrews, J.L., and Benedet, L., 2006. Assessment of offshore sand resources for beach nourishment along the southwest coast of Florida. Proceedings of the 19th Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology(Tallahassee, Florida, FSBP Association). Google Scholar

27.

Finkl, C.W.; Becerra, J.E.; Achatz, V., and Andrews, J.L., 2008. Geomorphological mapping along the upper southeast Florida Atlantic continental platform; I: Mapping units, symbolization, and GIS presentation of interpreted seafloor topography. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(6), 1388–1417. Google Scholar

28.

Finkl, C.W.; Benedet, L., and Andrews, J.L., 2004. Laser Airborne Depth Sounder (LADS): A new bathymetric survey technique in the service of coastal engineering environmental studies, and coastal zone management. Proceedings of the 17th Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology (Lake Buena Vista, Florida), [CD-ROM]. Google Scholar

29.

Finkl, C.W.; Benedet, L., and Andrews, J.L., 2005a. Interpretation of seabed geomorphology based on spatial analysis of high-density airborne laser bathymetry. Journal of Coastal Research, 21(3), 501–514. Google Scholar

30.

Finkl, C.W.; Benedet, L., and Andrews, J.L., 2005b. Submarine geomorphology of the continental shelf off southeast Florida based on interpretation of airborne laser bathymetry. Journal of Coastal Research, 21(6), 1178–1190. Google Scholar

31.

Finkl, C.W.; Benedet, L., and Andrews, J.L., 2006. Impacts of high energy events on sediment budgets, beach systems and offshore sand resources along the southeast coast of Florida. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Coastal Engineering (San Diego,California, ASCE), 30(4),4255p. Google Scholar

32.

Finkl, C.W.; Benedet, L.; Andrews, J.L.; Suthard, B., and Locker, S.D., 2007. Sediment ridges on the west Florida inner continental shelf: Sand resources for beach nourishment. Journal of Coastal Research, 23(1), 143–158. Google Scholar

33.

Finkl, C.W. and DaPrato, G.W., 1993. Delineation and distribution of nearshore reefs in subtropical southeast Florida coastal environments using Thematic Mapper imagery. Marine Technology Society Annual Meeting 93 Conference Proceedings (Long Beach, California), pp. 90–96. Google Scholar

34.

Finkl, C.W. and Makowski, C., 2013. The Southeast Florida Coastal Zone (SFCZ): A cascade of natural, biological, and human-induced hazards. In: Finkl, C.W. (ed.), Coastal Hazards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 3–56. Google Scholar

35.

Finkl, C.W.; Makowski, C., and Vollmer, H., 2014. Advanced techniques for mapping biophysical environments on carbonate banks using Laser Airborne Depth Sounding (LADS) and IKONOS satellite imagery. In: Finkl, C.W. and Makowski, C. (eds.), Remote Sensing and Modeling: Advances in Coastal and Marine Resources, Coastal Research Library Volume 9. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 31–63. Google Scholar

36.

Finkl, C.W. and Restrepo-Coupe, N., 2007. Potential natural environments based on pedological properties in the coastal conurbation of subtropical southeast Florida. Journal of Coastal Research, 23(2), 319–351. Google Scholar

37.

Finkl, C.W. and Vollmer, H., 2011. Interpretation of bottom types from IKONOS satellite images of the southern Key West National Wildlife Refuge, Florida, USA. In: Furmańczyk, K.; Giza, A., and Terefenko, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Coastal Symposium (ICS). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 64, pp. 731–735. Google Scholar

38.

Finkl, C.W. and Warner, M.T., 2005. Morphological features and morphological zones along the inner continental shelf of southeastern Florida: An example of form and process controlled by lithology. In: Finkl, C.W. (ed.), The Sun, Earth, and Moon. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 42, pp. 79–96. Google Scholar

39.

Ginsburg, R.N. and James, N.P., 1974. Holocene carbonate sediments of continental shelves. In: Burk, C.A. and Drake, C.L. (eds.), The Geology of Continental Margins. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 137–155. Google Scholar

40.

Gorsline, D.S., 1963. Bottom sediments of the Atlantic shelf and slope off the southern United States. The Journal of Geology, 71(4), 422–440. Google Scholar

41.

Greene, H.G.; Yoklavich, M.M.; Starr, R.M.; O'Connell, V.M.; Wakefield, W.W.; Sullivan, D.E.; McRea, J.E., and Cailliet, G.M., 1999. A classification scheme for deep seafloor habitats. Oceanologica Acta, 22(6), 663–678. Google Scholar

42.

Halley, R.B.; Vacher, H.L., and Shinn, E.A., 1997. Geology and hydrogeology of the Florida Keys. In: Vacher, H.L. and Quinn, T. (eds.), Geology and Hydrology of Carbonate Islands: Developments in Sedimentology, Volume 54. New York: Elsevier B.V., pp. 217–248. Google Scholar

43.

Heap, A.D. and Harris, P.T., 2008. Geomorphology of the Australian margin and adjacent seafloor. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 55(4), 555–585. Google Scholar

44.

Hine, A.C., 2013. Geologic History of Florida: Major Events That Formed the Sunshine State. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 256p. Google Scholar

45.

Hochberg, E.J.; Andréfouët, S., and Tyler, M.R., 2003. Sea surface correction of high spatial resolution IKONOS images to improve bottom mapping in near-shore environments. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 41(7), 1724–1729. Google Scholar

46.

Hoffmeister, J.E., 1974. Land from the Sea: The Geological Story of South Florida. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 140p. Google Scholar

47.

Jaap, W.C., 1984. The Ecology of the South Florida Coral Reefs: A Community Profile. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 10p. Google Scholar

48.

Klemas, V., 2011. Remote sensing techniques for studying coastal ecosystems: An overview. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(1), 2–17. Google Scholar

49.

Klemas V. and Yan, X.-H., 2014. Subsurface and deeper ocean remote sensing from satellites: An overview and new results. Progress in Oceanography, 122, 1–9. Google Scholar

50.

Kouchi, K. and Yamazaki, F., 2007. Characteristics of tsunami-affected areas in moderate-resolution satellite images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45(6), 1650–1657. Google Scholar

51.

Lidz, B.H., 2004. Coral reef complexes at an atypical windward platform margin: Late Quaternary, southeast Florida. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 116, 974–988. Google Scholar

52.

Lidz, B.H., 2006. Pleistocene corals of the Florida Keys: Architects of imposing reefs—Why? Journal of Coastal Research, 22(4), 750–759. Google Scholar

53.

Lidz, B.H.; Hine, A.C., and Shinn, E.A., 1991. Multiple outlier-reef systems off a carbonate platform: A new type of windward margin (South Florida). American Association Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,75(3), 621. Google Scholar

54.

Lidz, B.H.; Hine, A.C.; Shinn, E.A., and Kindinger, J.L., 1991. Multiple outer-reef tracts along the South Florida bank margin: Outlier reefs, a new windward-margin model. Geology, 19, 115–118. Google Scholar

55.

Lidz, B.H.; Reich, C.D.; Peterson, R.L., and Shinn, E.A., 2006. New maps, new information: Coral reefs of the Florida Keys. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(2), 260–282. Google Scholar

56.

Lidz, B.H.; Reich, C.D., and Shinn, E.A., 2003. Regional Quaternary submarine geomorphology in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 115, 845–866. Google Scholar

57.

Lidz, B.H.; Robbin, D.M., and Shinn, E.A., 1985. Holocene carbonate sedimentary petrology and facies accumulation, Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science, 36(3), 672–700. Google Scholar

58.

Lidz, B.H.; Shinn, E.A.; Hine, A.C., and Locker, S.D., 1997. Contrasts within an outlier-reef system: Evidence for differential Quaternary evolution, south Florida windward margin, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal Research, 13(3), 711–731. Google Scholar

59.

Lirman, D. and Fong, P., 1997. Susceptibility of coral communities to storm intensity, duration, and frequency. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Volume 1 (Panama City, Panama), pp. 561–566. Google Scholar

60.

Madden, C.; Goodin, K.; Allee, B.; Finkbeiner, M., and Bamford, D., 2008. Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard. Charleston, South Carolina: NOAA Coastal Services Center, 77p. Google Scholar

61.

Maeder, J.; Narumalani, S.; Rundquist, D.C.; Perk, R.L.; Schalles, J.; Hutchins, K., and Keck, J., 2002. Classifying and mapping general coral-reef structure using IKONOS data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 68(12), 1297–1305. Google Scholar

62.

Makowski, C., 2014. Development and Application of a New Comprehensive Image-Based Classification Scheme for Coastal and Benthic Environments Along the Southeast Florida Continental Shelf. Boca Raton, Florida: Florida Atlantic University, Ph.D. dissertation, 303p. Google Scholar

63.

Makowski, C. and Finkl, C.W., 2016. History of modern seafloor mapping. In: Finkl, C.W. and Makowski, C. (eds.), Seafloor Mapping along Continental Shelves: Research and Techniques for Visualizing Benthic Environments. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Google Scholar

64.

Makowski, C.; Finkl, C.W., and Vollmer, H.M., 2015. Geospatially Integrated Seafloor Classification Scheme (G-ISCS): A new method for cognitively interpreting benthic biogeomorphological features. Journal of Coastal Research, 31(2), 488–504. Google Scholar

65.

Makowski, C.; Finkl, C.W., and Vollmer, H.M., 2016. Classification of continental shelves in terms of geospatially integrated physiographic realms and morphodynamic zones. Journal of Coastal Research, 32(1), 1–34. Google Scholar

66.

Manson, F.J.; Loneragan, N.R.; McLeod, I.M., and Kenyon, R.A., 2001. Assessing techniques for estimating the extent of mangroves: Topographic maps, aerial photographs and Landsat TM images. Marine and Freshwater Research, 52, 787–792. Google Scholar

67.

Multer, H.G.; Gischler, E.; Lundberg, J.; Simmons, K.R., and Shinn, E.A., 2002. Key Largo limestone revisited: Pleistocene shelf-edge facies, Florida Keys, USA. Facies, 46(1), 229–271. Google Scholar

68.

Mumby, P.J. and Edwards, A.J., 2002. Mapping marine environments with IKONOS imagery: Enhanced spatial resolution can deliver greater thematic accuracy. Remote Sensing of Environment, 82, 248–257. Google Scholar

69.

Mumby, P.J. and Harborne, A.R., 1999. Development of a systematic classification scheme of marine habitats to facilitate regional management and mapping of Caribbean coral reefs. Biological Conservation, 88, 155–163. Google Scholar

70.

Nunn, P.D., 1994. Oceanic Islands. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 413p. Google Scholar

71.

Palandro, D.; Andréfouët, S.; Dustan, P., and Muller-Karger, F.E., 2003. Change detection in coral reef communities using IKONOS satellite sensor imagery and historical aerial photographs. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24(4), 873–878. Google Scholar

72.

Schwartz, M., 2005. Encyclopedia of Coastal Science. New York: Springer, 1211p. Google Scholar

73.

Shinn, E., 1963. Spur and groove formation on the Florida Reef Tract. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 33(2), 291–303. Google Scholar

74.

Selkoe, K.A.; Halpern, B.S.; Ebert, C.M.; Franklin, E.C.; Selig, E.R.; Casey, K.S.; Bruno, J., and Toonen, R.J., 2009. A map of human impacts to a “pristine” coral reef ecosystem, the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Coral Reefs, 28(3), 635–650. Google Scholar

75.

Short, A.D., (ed.), 1999. Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley,379p. Google Scholar

76.

Stapor Jr, F.W., 1982. Beach ridges and beach ridge coasts. In: Schwartz, M.L. (ed.), Beaches and Coastal Geology. New York: Springer US, pp. 160–161. Google Scholar

77.

Steimle, J.T. and Finkl, C.W., 2011. Interpretation of seafloor topologies based on IKONOS satellite imagery of a shallow-marine carbonate platform: Florida Bay to the Florida Reef Tract. In: Furmańczyk, K.; Giza, A., and Terefenko, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Coastal Symposium (ICS). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 64, pp. 825–830. Google Scholar

78.

Swart, P.K. and Kramer, P.A., 1997. Geology of mud islands in Florida Bay. In: Vacher, R.L. and Quinn, T.M. (eds.), Geology and Hydrology of Carbonate Islands: Developments in Sedimentology. New York: Elsevier, pp. 249–274. Google Scholar

79.

Valentine, P.C.; Cochrane, G.R., and Scanlon, K.M., 2003. Mapping the seabed and habitats in National Marine Sanctuaries: Examples from the East, Gulf, and WestCoasts. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(1), 10–17. Google Scholar

80.

Wanless, H.R.; Dravis, J.J.; Tedesco, L.P., and Rossinsky, V., 1989. Carbonate Environments and Sequences of Caicos Platform: Caicos, British West Indies to Miami, Florida, July 20–26, 1989. IGC Field Trip Guidebook T374, pp. 1–75. Google Scholar

81.

Wanless, H.R.; Tyrrell, K.M.; Tedesco, L.P., and Dravis, J.J., 1988. Tidal-flat sedimentation from Hurricane Kate, Caicos Platform, British West Indies. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 58(4), 724–738. Google Scholar

82.

Wedding, L.M. and Friedlander, A.M., 2008. Determining the influence of seascape structure on coral reef fishes in Hawaii using a geospatial approach. Marine Geodesy, 31(4), 246–266. Google Scholar

83.

White, W.A., 1970. The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Geological Bulletin, No. 51, pp. 161–164. Google Scholar

84.

Wolanski, E., 2007. Estuarine Ecohydrology. Oxford: Elsevier, 168p. Google Scholar

85.

Wright, L.D. and Short, A.D., 1984. Morphodynamic variability of surf zones and beaches: A synthesis. Marine Geology, 56, 93–118. Google Scholar
©Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. 2017
Christopher Makowski, Charles W. Finkl, and Heather M. Vollmer "Geoform and Landform Classification of Continental Shelves using Geospatially Integrated IKONOS Satellite Imagery," Journal of Coastal Research 33(1), 1-22, (1 January 2017). https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00003.1
Received: 29 January 2016; Accepted: 21 February 2016; Published: 1 January 2017
JOURNAL ARTICLE
22 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top