939

Estimation of shrimp (Pandalus borealis) carapace

length by image analysis
Alf Harbitz

Harbitz, A. 2007. Estimation of shrimp (Pandalus borealis) carapace length by image analysis. — ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 939 –944.
An image analysis technique was examined to assess its ability to estimate automatically the carapace length of shrimp (Pandalus
borealis). Carapace length, pixel area, and weight were measured in a sample of 285 shrimp. An accurate slide calliper was used to

Downloaded from http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/ at Kokusai Hoken Keikakugaku (UNIV OF TOKYO) on June 3, 2015
measure the carapace length (13– 30 mm) by an experienced operator with a precision (standard deviation) of 0.2 mm. A high-res-
olution still image camera was used to produce an 1810  1710 pixel colour image containing all 285 shrimp. The individual shrimp
were segmented from the background by intensity thresholding. A linear model on a log-log scale of length in relation to pixel area
yielded a precision of 0.43 mm. Despite differences in precision, the length frequency distributions based on manual and imaging tech-
niques were similar. The central processing unit time spent by the image analysis program was ,0.01 s per shrimp. This indicates the
potential for precise, efficient, automatic processing of large numbers of shrimp lengths by, for example, video records of shrimp on a
moving transport band.
Keywords: image analysis, length frequency distribution, length– weight relationship, shrimp carapace length, slide calliper measurements.
Received 27 January 2006; accepted 5 March 2007; advance access publication 25 April 2007.
A. Harbitz: Institute of Marine Research, PO Box 6404, N-9294 Tromsø, Norway. tel: þ47 77 609731; fax: þ47 77 609701; e-mail: alf.harbitz@imr.no.

Introduction
Length measurements of shrimp (Pandalus borealis) are essential
in conducting allometric comparisons of conditions based on
length and weight measurements and growth studies that follow
year classes. Age classes are typically identified from modal analysis
of carapace length frequency distributions, because of a lack of
biological age markers (Bergström, 2000). The conventional
equipment for this purpose is an accurate electronic slide calliper
handled manually. This is a tedious process that typically limits the
sample size to a few hundred shrimp per trawl haul. The limited
sample size makes identification of certain age classes difficult
(MacDonald and Pitcher, 1979), in particular those with a small
relative abundance and older age classes that are not as clearly sep-
arated in length as younger age classes. Improvement in the separ-
ation of modal age classes could be obtained if a large sample of
length estimates was available (e.g. based on automatic measure-
ments from video records of shrimp on a moving transport
band; Hasselblad, 1966).
The need to obtain a large sample size of precise length
measurements was the motivation to investigate the ability to
derive length estimates of shrimp from images based on a
very simple dimensional idea. Because an image of a shrimp
represents a two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional
object, the pixel area should be approximately proportional to
the square of the one-dimensional carapace length, if the
shape does not vary too much with carapace length. From an
image analysis perspective, the challenge is to differentiate
shrimp in an image from the background, as well as from
each other. Because shrimp are red, they can be differentiated
using a background of another colour, then applying intensity
thresholding (Russ, 1992).
Two goals of the paper are to demonstrate that pixel areas of
shrimp can be measured automatically and efficiently, and that
they can provide precise estimates of carapace length robust with
regard to the composition of sex stages. Because only one
sample is examined, which contained three different sex stages,
the between-sample robustness and the calibration robustness
with regard to other sex stages (e.g. shrimp with external eggs)
are not treated in this paper. It is emphasized that the benefit of
the imaging technique is seen in a future large sample context
based on, for example, video records from a moving transport
band, and not as an efficient still image alternative to calliper
measurements of modest sample sizes typical for use on present
scientific surveys.
Material and methods
During a Svalbard survey in 2005, a random sample of 285 shrimp
from a trawl catch was measured for carapace length to the nearest
0.01 mm using a Mitutoy IP65 electronic calliper. Shrimp lengths
in the range 13.1– 29.4 mm were measured. The slide calliper
measurements were made by an experienced operator, for whom
a good estimate of precision in terms of standard deviation (0.2
mm) was available after several years with precision experiments.
Each shrimp was weighed to the nearest 0.1 g.
A transparent glass plate with light from below, along with a
white plate, was used as background for the imaging, and five
shrimp at a time were placed on the glass plate before being
imaged. Each shrimp was located in its natural position. A
digital high-resolution still image camera (Nicon Coolpix 995)
located 50 cm above the shrimp targets was used for imaging.
Images of several transparent scales, which were located at differ-
ent positions in the image frame, were taken to check that the

# 2007 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Oxford Journals. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
940
resolution (pixels per mm) was independent of direction and pixel
position. Three different persons cooperated with the three
measurement processes, which lasted less than an hour in total.
Image analysis
The images were imported as jpg files to a personal computer with
a 1.9 GHz Intel Pentium Model 9 processor and 2 GB RAM, and
processed using Matlab (The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA) for
image analysis. For convenience and efficiency, but also to
mimic a video situation with coarser resolution, the images were
first down-sampled by a factor of eight in each direction. All
images were then merged in a single 1810  1710 pixel colour
image in a systematic mosaic pattern for easy identification. The
pixel area for the individual shrimp in the down-sampled image
varied from 367 to 1963 pixels.
The shrimp were segmented from the background based on
intensity thresholding of the blue component of the image
colour, because that component had the greatest contrast
between the dark shrimp and the brighter background. The inten-
sity threshold that gave the best fit between the calliper-measured
carapace lengths and the image-estimated lengths was chosen.
When the object pixels were identified, the next challenge was to
segment and identify each shrimp individually. For this purpose,
the Matlab toolbox for image analysis was applied. Objects with
an area ,156 pixels were eliminated.
Slide calliper precision of operator
One operator may estimate his or her precision, in terms of stan-
dard deviation, by measuring the same sample of shrimp twice.
This is done by simply calculating the square root of half the
variance of the differences between the two replicates. For three
operators, it is sufficient that they each measure the same
shrimp once, in order to estimate the precision for each of them.
Let li be the true carapace length of the ith shrimp, and let Lij
be the calliper-measured length determined by operator j. The
model is simply Lij ¼ li þ Elij, Elij  N(mj, sj),where all
error terms Elij are assumed to be independent and normally dis-
tributed, with an operator-dependent mean mj and variance s2j .
The standard deviations, sj, are the precision measures we want
to estimate.
Let Dijk denote the difference between two measurements of
shrimp i by operators j and k:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Dijk ¼ Lij  Lik ¼ Eijl  Eikl  Nðmj  mk ; s2j þ s2k Þ:
The variance of Dijk for operators j and k is estimated as:
!2 !
1 Xn
1 Xn
S2jk ¼ D2ijk  Dijk
n  1 i¼1 n i¼1
from which we can estimate the precision of each of the three oper-
ators as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
^1 ¼ 1 2 2 2
s 2 ðS12 þ S13  S23 Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
^2 ¼ 12 ðS212  S213 þ S223 Þ :
s ð1Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
^3 ¼ 12 ðS212 þ S213 þ S223 Þ
s
A. Harbitz
To obtain meaningful estimates, these expressions must be posi-
tive. This might not be the case when the levels of precision are
very different, or when the sample size is small. In the case of
one operator with a much larger variance than the other two,
the problem lies in the estimation of precision for the most
precise operators.
The properties of the estimators in Equation (1) were examined
by performing 10 000 bootstrap estimates of the differences Dijk
(Efron and Tibshirani, 1993).
Relationships between carapace length,
shrimp area, and weight
Downloaded from http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/ at Kokusai Hoken Keikakugaku (UNIV OF TOKYO) on June 3, 2015
For isometric growth of a shrimp, the area and weight are expected
to increase approximately as the square and cube of the length.
More generally, we assume a power law between the three vari-
ables, synonymous with a linear relationship between the log-
transformed variables.
Let L, A, and W denote measured length, area, and weight,
respectively, for a random shrimp. Further, let X ¼ log(L) and
Y ¼ log(A) or log(W). The measured values deviate from the
linear model y ¼ a þ bx by terms Dx and Dy:
X ¼ x þ Dx; Y ¼ y þ Dy:
Note that the error terms include measurement errors as well as
inherent deviations from the linear model. As an estimator for b,
I applied the geometric mean estimate of the functional regression
of Y on X, introduced by Ricker (1973):
SY
bGM ¼ ; ð2Þ
SX
where S2X and S2Y are the sample variances of X and Y, respectively.
This estimator has superior bias properties compared with the
classical least square estimator for b, when both X and Y are sto-
chastic. In fact, for modest error terms, the following expressions
can be deduced as modifications of the bGM estimator, which
adjusts for the maximum and minimum bias that can occur:
bGM bGM
bmin
GM ¼ ; bmax
GM ¼ ; ð3Þ
1 þ ð1  rÞ 1  ð1  rÞ
where r is the empirical correlation coefficient between X and Y. In
other words, if bGM was adjusted by the true, unknown, and unes-
timable bias, the adjusted bGM estimator would lie between b min GM
and bmax
GM . The expressions in Equation (3) will be very useful in
making inferences of isometric vs. non-isometric growth, as well
as assessments of how sensitive the length frequency distribution
is with regard to this unknown bias.
; The properties of the b estimator, such as the standard devi-
ation, are easily estimated by bootstrapping the n triple obser-
vations. For each bootstrap replication, bGM,boot, bmin GM,boot, and
bmax
GM,boot are calculated, and this is repeated nrep times. A conserva-
tive 95% confidence interval (CI) for b is then (bmin,2.5% GM,boot ,
bmax,97.5%
GM,boot ), where the notations 2.5% and 97.5% denote the 2.5
and 97.5 empirical percentiles, respectively. If the interval does
not contain the isometric value for b, this is synonymous with
rejection at the 5% level of the null hypothesis of b being equal
to the isometric value vs. the two-sided alternative hypothesis of
being different. A conservative interval in this context means
that the level is expected to be .95%. This follows because, for
Estimation of shrimp carapace length by image analysis 941

the lower interval limit, the upper threshold on the unknown bias
is chosen, which minimizes the lower interval limit, and vice versa
for the upper interval limit.
Estimation of length
The focus is now how well one can estimate length from the pixel
area. In this context, it is also interesting to examine how well
length is estimated from weight, and to compare length estimates
based on area and weight.
In all cases, the linear model y ¼ a þ bx is applied, with the fol-
lowing simple estimator for a:
^a ¼ Y  bGM  X;
Rasmussen, 1953, for more details on the sex stages). The
shrimp weighed between 1.4 and 14.2 g, with a mean of 5.36 g.
An example of the blue component in the image of five shrimp
at sex stage 4 (head roe and abdominal spines, Figure 1a), and the
result of the automatic segmentation procedure based on intensity
threshold, are shown in Figure 1. The segmented shrimp are shown
in grey (Figure 1b) on a black background, along with small white
segments that were excluded from the analysis. For comparison,
the carapace lengths measured with the slide calliper and the cor-
responding lengths estimated from the grey pixel areas are given.
The central processing unit time spent on the image analysis
was ca. 2 s, i.e. ,0.01 s per shrimp, and 1000 times faster than

Downloaded from http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/ at Kokusai Hoken Keikakugaku (UNIV OF TOKYO) on June 3, 2015
ð4Þ the slide calliper measurement. This included the identification
of object pixels, the segmentation of object pixels in a set of
where an overbar denotes arithmetic average. As an example, let labelled and distinct objects, the calculation of object pixel areas,
X ¼ log(L) and Y ¼ log(A). The length is then estimated from A the separation of shrimp objects, and the identification of the
by the expression shrimp based on centroid values. The latter was needed in order
to link each shrimp’s area with the corresponding slide calliper
 1=bGM
A measurement.
LA ¼ ; ð5Þ Comparisons of the three operators’ measurements of carapace
expð^aÞ
length with a slide calliper are shown in Figure 2 based on a
and the residuals are simply LAi 2 Li, i ¼ 1, . . ., n. A measure of 30-shrimp test sample. Operator 1 (ŝop,1 ¼ 0.19 mm) is the one
precision of length estimated by pixel area is then who measured the shrimp used in the image analysis study.
Note that operators 2 (ŝop,2 ¼ 0.24 mm) and 3 (ŝop,3 ¼ 0.14
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi mm) had minimal experience, illustrating that, in general, the
1 X n
s
^ LA ¼ ðLAi  Li Þ2  s 2
^op ð6Þ slide calliper provides precise results. In addition, no systematic
n  2 i¼1

Because each of the differences in the sum above is calculated for

the same individual, the unknown, true length disappears. The cal-
2
liper measurement variance, ŝop , is subtracted, because in a real
situation with lengths estimated from the pixel area, this measure-
ment error is absent. The precision measure ŝLAcan be interpreted
as the standard deviation of length measurements by pixel area as a
stand-alone technique, including the inherent variation in shrimp
length and area, as well as measurement errors in the area.
The exercise above can be done analogously based on weight
data instead of area data, providing an estimate ŝLW for the pre-
cision of estimated length from weight. We can now compare
the precision of length estimates based on area and weight by com-
paring ŝLA with ŝLW. We can also examine the correlation between
the residuals LAi 2Li and LWi 2Li. A strong positive correlation will
indicate that the inherent area and weight error variables covariate
much more strongly with each other than with the inherent error
variable for length.
The empirical length frequency distributions based on the cal-
liper measured, image-based and weight-based lengths were visu-
alized and compared by kernel smoothing (Wand and Jones,
1995), using a normal kernel with a standard deviation (window
width) h ¼ 0.5 mm. A length step of 0.1 mm is used in the visual-
ization. For the image-based distribution, a frequency interval is
calculated at each length step, to illustrate the maximal effect of
a possible bias in the estimation of the regression slope parameter
b. The interval limits are determined by the frequency values
obtained with bmin max
GM and bGM , and the set of intervals is shown as
a continuous band.
Figure 1. (a) Example of the blue component of an image with five
Results shrimp. (b) The automatically segmented shrimp after down-
The sample consisted of 177 males (sex stage 2), 53 females with sampling of the original image by a factor of 8 in each direction. The
head roe and abdominal spines (sex stage 4), and 55 females white spots in the lower panel are objects that are removed by area
with head roe but no abdominal spines (sex stage 8; see thresholding.
942 A. Harbitz

Downloaded from http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/ at Kokusai Hoken Keikakugaku (UNIV OF TOKYO) on June 3, 2015
Figure 2. Example of an experiment to estimate operator precision of carapace length measurements. Operator 1 measured the carapace
lengths used in the image analysis.

differences between the individual operators were apparent, indi-
cating that the bias of the calliper measurements is negligible.
The straight one-to-one line gives a rather good fit to the
image-estimated lengths plotted against the lengths measured by
the slide calliper (correlation coefficient r ¼ 0.990; Figure 3a).
The image-estimated length precision is ŝLA ¼ 0.433 mm, assum-
ing sop ¼ 0.2 mm. The estimated GM slope parameter in the
regression of log(A) on log(L) was bGM ¼ 2.171 (Table 1), some-
what above the isometric value of 2. Based on the 10 000 bootstrap
simulations, the conservative 95% CI for b was (2.106, 2.234).
When the slope parameter was estimated for each sex stage sep-
arately, the results were bGM ¼ 2.245, 2.368, and 2.115 for sex stages
2, 4, and 8, respectively. Interestingly, 95% CIs for b contained the
isometric value 2 for sex stage 8, but not for sex stages 2 and 4. The
lengths for each sex stage were also estimated based on the
regression line fitted to that sex stage and compared with the
lengths based on the entire sample (bGM ¼ 2.171). The differences
were negligible and largest for sex stage 4 (mean difference of 0.073
mm, s.d. of 0.105 mm). This indicated that the image-estimated
lengths were reasonably robust with regard to the composition of
sex stages, at least for the shrimp in the sample analysed.
To examine the assumption of normality for the distributions
of the GM-estimators bGM, bmin max
GM , and bGM for b in the regression
of log(A) on log(L), 10 000 bootstrap simulations were run, and
the skewness and kurtosis values were calculated. The skewness
results were 0.092, 20.038, and 20.046, and the kurtosis results
were 3.017, 2.933, and 2.918 for the three estimators, respectively.
These values are close to the theoretical values 0 and 3 for a normal
distribution. We conclude that possible deviations from normality
are so small that they have no influence on the conclusions based
on the normality assumption.
When pixel area was converted to physical area, the following
relationship between carapace length and projected shrimp area,
A, was found, with estimated standard deviations given after
the + symbol:
L ¼ ð0:872 + 0:026ÞAð0:460+0:0045Þ ; ð7Þ

Figure 3. (a) Carapace length estimated from the fitted image analysis model LA ¼ 0.872A 0.460, with LA in mm and A in mm2, as a function of
slide calliper measurements. (b) Model fit for the weights, LW ¼ 11.8 W 0.336, with LW in mm and W in g. (c) The correspondence between LA
and LW.
Estimation of shrimp carapace length by image analysis 943

Table 1. Values of the Ricker estimator bGM ¼ s.d. (Y)/s.d. (X) and The lengths estimated from weight were even more highly
the estimated standard deviation (in parenthesis) of bGM, based on correlated with the calliper-measured lengths than were the image-
10 000 bootstrap simulations of the n ¼ 285 joint length (L), pixel based lengths, with an empirical correlation coefficient of rLW ¼
area (A), and weight observations (W ). 0.993 (Figure 3b). The weight-based length precision is ŝLW ¼
Variables Y 0.338 mm. In this case, the slope parameter bGM in the regression
of log(W ) on log(L) was 2.999, i.e. very close to the isometric value
X log(L) log(A) log(W) 3. The conservative 95% CI for bGM was (2.928, 3.069), so in a two-
Sex stages log(L) – 2.171 (0.021) 2.999 (0.025) sided hypothesis test with a 5% test level, there was no evidence in
2. . . .þ 4þ8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
the data to reject the hypothesis of an isometric relationship
Sex stages log(A) 0.461 (0.0045) – 1.381 (0.0090) between length and weight. For the analysis on each sex stage sep-
2. . . .þ 4þ8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
arately, bGM was not significantly different from 3 for sex stages 2
Sex stages log(W) 0.333 (0.0027) 0.724 (0.0047) – and 4, but was significantly less than 3 for sex stage 8 on a 5% test

Downloaded from http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/ at Kokusai Hoken Keikakugaku (UNIV OF TOKYO) on June 3, 2015
2. . . .þ 4 þ 8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
level.
Sex stage 2 log(L) – 2.245 (0.041) 3.010 (0.052) The correspondence between the image- and weight-based
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sex stage 2 log(A) 0.445 (0.0081) – 1.340 (0.015) length estimates is shown in Figure 3c, and good correspondence
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sex stage 2 log(W) 0.332 (0.0058) 0.746 (0.0085) – is clear (r ¼ 0.994). The correlation coefficient between residuals
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LA 2 L and LW 2 L was 0.66. When the image model under-
Sex stage 4 log(L) – 2.368 (0.100) 2.871 (0.114)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
estimates or overestimates the length compared with the slide
Sex stage 4 log(A) 0.422 (0.018) – 1.212 (0.060)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . calliper, the weight model tends to move in the same direction.
Sex stage 4 log(W) 0.348 (0.014) 0.825 (0.042) –
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This also illustrates an interesting potential for estimating weight
Sex stage 8 log(L) – 2.115 (0.111) 2.815 (0.082)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . from pixel area.
Sex stage 8 log(A) 0.473 (0.024) – 1.331 (0.047)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kernel smoothed length frequency distributions based on the
Sex stage 8 log(W) 0.355 (0.010) 0.751 (0.027) – three different length sources (slide-calliper measurements, pixel
area and weight) are shown in Figure 4, based on a normal
kernel with a standard deviation (window width) h ¼ 0.5 mm.
where L is in mm and A is in mm2. The + symbol in the first par- The image-based length distributions are shown as a band
enthesis is reversed compared with that in the exponent to indicate where, for each fine 0.1 mm step in length, the limits of the
that the estimators for a and b are strongly negatively correlated band are determined by the bias factor threshold +(1 2 r) for
(correlation coefficient equal to 20.999). the slope parameter bGM in the regression of log(A) on log(L). It

Figure 4. Kernel-smoothed length frequency distributions with a normal kernel with s.d. of h ¼ 0.5 mm. The solid curve is based on calliper
measurements, the dashed one on lengths estimated from weight. The shaded curve is based on lengths estimated from pixel area with the
bias corrected estimators bmin max
GM and bGM , illustrating the maximum effect of the unknown bias of the b estimator.
944
is therefore clear that the effect of this unknown bias is negligible.
All curves show reasonably good agreement with each other.
Discussion
The faster than isometric growth of pixel area as a function of
carapace length (b . 2) was in contrast to the isometric length–
weight relationship (b ¼ 3). A plausible biological explanation
for this difference can be found if the growth of the shell and
the rest of the shrimp is considered as two different processes.
From experience (Einar Nilssen, Institute of Marine Research,
Tromsø, pers. comm.), it is well known that the relative area of
the dominant pleonite, which for females covers the external
eggs, tends to be visibly larger in females than in males. Owing
to the expanded thin shell, such an effect is expected to be rela-
tively greater on area than on weight.
An important question is how the pixel area would vary with
carapace length for shrimp with external eggs that were not
present in the sample analysed. This sex stage will be given
special priority in a future development of the technique. In
fact, it might be expected that the relationship between length
and area is less influenced by the presence of external eggs than
the length –weight relationship, because in contrast to the
weight, the projected area of the pleonites covering the eggs is
expected to be far less influenced by the presence or absence of
the eggs. Even if the slope parameter in the linear regression
between length and area, on a log-log scale, appears to depend
on sex stage in general, the difference may be so modest that the
image-estimated lengths will be robust, as indicated from this
analysis.
Another potential application of the imaging technique that
should be investigated is to identify sex stages, e.g. by colour seg-
mentation, because head roe and eggs have colours that are clearly
different from the red shrimp. In this case, the length estimates
may improve as well, if it turns out that there are less between-
sample differences in the length –area correspondence for a
given sex stage, than there are between-sex stage differences. In
any case, it is unrealistic to expect that the imaging technique
will replace conventional manual techniques completely. For
example, it is hard to see how the trans-sexual stage can be separ-
ated from males by efficient image analysis.
A future challenge will be to improve the precision of the
imaging technique. One approach is to use a background colour,
e.g. blue, that is different from the red colour of the shrimp, in
order to enhance the separation between shrimp and the back-
ground. Another approach is to use background correction, e.g.
by first taking a reference video (or photos) without shrimp,
then subtracting it from the images with shrimp. One may also
think of more advanced image analysis, e.g. to apply elliptical
Fourier coefficients (Kuhl and Giardina, 1982) to derive some
appropriate smooth shrimp contours to reduce noise.
An alternative to detecting the entire shrimp pixel area where in
principle no shrimp separation might be necessary, is to focus on
the eyes of the shrimp, although in this case high-resolution
A. Harbitz
images would be required. Such an enhancement could be
obtained with normal video resolution, though, by utilizing the
fact that the same eyes are visible on several images in the video
and therefore can be enhanced. Shrimp eyes should in fact be
easy to segment owing to their darkness and almost circular
shape, though other problems must be investigated, such as the
possibly different number of eyes visible (0, 1, or 2) for each
shrimp.
Although length has been the key variable considered, the
imaging technique clearly has a great potential to estimate
weight, not least indicated by the rather strong positive correlation
between the residuals of length estimates based on weight and the
Downloaded from http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/ at Kokusai Hoken Keikakugaku (UNIV OF TOKYO) on June 3, 2015
residuals of length estimates based on pixel area. The imaging
technique therefore has the potential to obtain reliable biomass
estimates, e.g. for separate age classes identified by the analysis
of the length frequency distribution provided by the imaging
technique.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for the help I received from several colleagues.
Thomas De Lange Wenneck had the responsibility for the
imaging set-up and the imaging process, and Ole Thomas Albert
was responsible for the weighing process. Michaela Aschan pro-
vided relevant biological literature and references. All three, as
well as Knut Sunnanå, contributed to a better paper through valu-
able discussions, and Ole Thomas Albert additionally through
proof reading and the idea of using imaged shrimp eyes. Finally,
I thank the reviewers and the editor, who contributed significantly
to improving the paper after the first draft.
References
Bergström, B. I. 2000. The biology of Pandalus. Advances in Marine
Biology, 38: 55 – 245.
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R.J. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Kuhl, F. P., and Giardina, C. 1982. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed
contour. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 18: 236 – 258.
Hasselblad, V. 1966. Estimation of parameters for a mixture of normal
distributions. Technometrics, 8: 431 –444.
MacDonald, P. D. M., and Pitcher, T. J. 1979. Age-groups from size-
frequency data: a versatile and efficient method of analysing distri-
bution mixtures. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, 36: 987 – 1001.
Rasmussen, B. 1953. On the geographical variation in growth and
sexual development of the deep sea prawn (Pandalus borealis).
Report of Norwegian Fishery and Marine Investigations, 10. 160 pp.
Ricker, W. E. 1973. Linear regressions in fishery research. Journal of
the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 30: 409 – 434.
Russ, J.C. 1992. The Image Processing Handbook. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Wand, M. P., and Jones, M. C. 1995. Kernel Smoothing. Chapman and
Hall, London.
doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsm047