Abstract
Understanding fluid expulsion is key to estimating gas exchange volumes between the seafloor, ocean, and atmosphere; for locating key ecosystems; and geohazard modelling. Locating active seafloor fluid expulsion typically requires acoustic backscatter data. Areas of very-high seafloor backscatter, or âhardgrounds,â are often used as first-pass indicators of potential fluid expulsion. However, varying and inconsistent spatial relationships between active fluid expulsion and hardgrounds means a direct link remains unclear. Here, we investigate the links between water-column acoustic flares to seafloor backscatter and bathymetric metrics generated from two calibrated multibeam echosounders. Our site, the Calypso hydrothermal vent field (HVF) in the Bay of Plenty, Aotearoa/New Zealand, has an extensive catalogue of vents and seeps in <250Â m water depth. We demonstrate a method to quantitatively link active fluid expulsion (flares) with seafloor characteristics. This allows us to develop predictive spatial models of active fluid expulsion. We explore whether data from a low (30Â kHz), high (200Â kHz), or combined frequency model increases predictive accuracy of expulsion locations. This research investigates the role of hardgrounds or surrounding sediment cover on the accuracy of predictive models. Our models link active fluid expulsion to specific seafloor characteristics. A combined model using both the 30 and 200Â kHz mosaics produced the best results (predictive accuracy: 0.75; Kappa: 0.65). This model performed better than the same model using individual frequency mosaics as input. Model results reveal active fluid expulsion is not typically associated with the extensive, embedded hardgrounds of the Calypso HVF, with minimal fluid expulsion. Unconsolidated sediment around the perimeter of and between hardgrounds were more active fluid expulsion sites. Fluids exploit permeable pathways up to the seafloor, modifying and refashioning the seafloor. Once a conduit self-seals, fluid will migrate to a more permeable pathway, thus reducing a one-to-one link between activity and hardgrounds. Being able to remotely predict active and inactive regions of fluid expulsion will prove a useful tool in rapidly identifying seeps in legacy datasets, as well as textural metrics that will aid in locating nascent, senescent, or extinct seeps when a survey is underway.
Introduction
Seafloor fluid expulsion is a key mechanism for large-scale gas exchange between the seafloor, ocean (; ), and potentially the atmosphere (; ; ; ). Anomalous areas of very-high seafloor acoustic backscatter, or âhardgrounds,â are often used as first-pass indicators of fluid expulsion sites, in addition to water-column acoustic anomalies, or âflares.â Hardgrounds form via several seafloor fluid expulsion processes: persistent mineral precipitation of oxides, sulfides, and minerals from hydrothermal fluids (; ; ; ); hydrothermal alteration of the seafloor (; ); or microbial mediation, whereby archaeal microbes oxidize dissolved gasses in escaping bubbles, forming authigenic carbonate platforms (; ; ). Anomalous very-high seafloor backscatter areas have higher backscatter intensities than the surrounding seafloor are thus interpreted as âhardgrounds,â as lithified seafloor is a stronger scatterer than the surrounding soft sediment. The relationship between acoustic hardgrounds and observable areas of indurated, lithified seafloor indicative of these processes has been validated in numerous settings (; ; ; ; ; ).
A direct link between active fluid expulsion and acoustic hardgrounds however remains unclear. Varying and inconsistent spatial relationships between observable fluid expulsion, hardgrounds, and the surrounding seafloor have been noted previously (; ; ). This unclear relationship reflects the complexity of hardground genesis, gas migration, fluid expulsion processes, and spatio-temporal differences in expulsion and embedment. Active fluid expulsion can be both short- (decades) or long-lived (thousands of years) (; ). Fluids exploit permeable pathways upward to the seafloor, with preliminary seafloor expression (either liquid or gas bubble expulsion) often occurring in areas of soft unconsolidated sediment due to an unrestricted pathway (; ). Hardground formation begins within the subsurface and, given enough time, can become embedded on the seafloor. Once the conduit closes or ceases activity, hardgrounds will remain at the surface or in the subsurface, with surface hardgrounds thenceforth observable in seafloor acoustic backscatter (; ). Formalizing the link between gas flares and hardgrounds has thus remained elusive due to spatiotemporal differences between active expulsion and hardground formation, which can post-date expulsion activity.
Here, we present a study from the active Calypso hydrothermal vent field (HVF), in the offshore TaupÅ Volcanic Zone, Aotearoa/New Zealand to address whether there are measurable links between gas flares, as a proxy for active fluid expulsion, and seafloor characteristics, in particular hardgrounds. Calypso HVF represents a rich laboratory of active fluid expulsion, in gas and liquid form, with a mix of vents, seeps, and hardground features, with a formal catalogue of active fluid expulsion spanning over five decades (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).
Our dataset encompasses bathymetry and backscatter from two calibrated multibeam echosounders (MBES) operating simultaneously at 200 and 30Â kHz (nominal) frequencies. Seafloor backscatter reflectivity and penetration depends, in part, on the signal frequency or aperture of the chosen MBES, as well as the acoustic impedance characteristics of the seafloor (a function of the mediumâs density and consequent sound speed) (; ; ). The acoustic response, or backscatter intensity returned, is dependent on interactions between wavelength, seafloor roughness, seafloor scattering regime (a function of substrate particle size), and volume scattering effects (a function of signal penetration), once radiometric and geometric compensations are applied (; ; ). The seafloor backscatter mosaic produced may therefore not directly correlate to the feature of interest if the MBES penetration potential is too high or low. Specific to hardgrounds, the MBES frequency may be unable to reveal hardgrounds embedded beneath the surface unless it can penetrate to the appropriate depths or may not accurately capture surface expressions if the frequency is too low.
Here, we use a classification approach, involving image segmentation and random forest modelling, to:
1 Quantitatively link water-column acoustic flares (here considered as a proxy for active fluid expulsion) with specific seafloor characteristics to determine potential links to hardgrounds in this region;
2 Assess whether these specific seafloor characteristics can be used to develop predictive spatial models of active fluid expulsion;
3 Evaluate if a low (nominally 30Â kHz), high (200Â kHz), or a combined frequency model increases predictive accuracy of seafloor fluid expulsion; and
4 Investigate the role hardgrounds or surrounding sediment cover may have on the accuracy of a predictive model.
Materials and Methods
The Calypso Hydrothermal Vent Field
The Calypso HVF is a well-known gas-hydrothermal region of the offshore TaupÅ Volcanic Zone (TVZ), in the center of the Bay of Plenty, Aotearoa/New Zealand. It lies âŒ40 km offshore Te Ika-a-MÄui/North Island and 7 km SW of the Whakaari/White Island active volcano (Figure 1A) (; ; ). The Calypso HVF is part of the Central Volcanic Region, that represents the volcanically active back-arc region of the Hikurangi subduction system located ca. 300 km to the east. The extensional tectonic setting associated with the back-arc has resulted in a dense network of NE-SW trending normal faults (), expressed at the seafloor by a pervasive system of scarps (). The TVZ extends offshore from the Bay of Plenty coast into the NE-trending depression of the WhakatÄne Graben.
FIGURE 1
Active fluid expulsion was formally catalogued at Calypso HVF from water-column acoustic scattering and visible sea surface bubbles (; ) and then from video observations (; ). These fluid expressions are evidence of both diffuse and discrete gas emission, predominantly CH4 and CO2, from submarine geothermal activity (; ). Calypso HVF fluid expulsion is suggested to be structurally controlled by the pervasive NE-SW trending fault system, with observed fluid expulsion ephemerality inferred to be related to seismic activity (). observed numerous active fluid expulsion areas aligned with fault scarps. In addition to the North Calypso HVF (including the original Calypso site from ) a second site, now known as the South Calypso HVF, was also detected with two discrete zones of fluid expulsion (). Subsequent voyages produced bathymetric maps of the area (25Â m grid resolution) using a Kongsberg EM302 (30Â kHz) MBES and generated a good knowledge of the tectonic fabric along with surface, water-column, and seafloor evidence for fluid expulsion and mineral precipitation (; ; ).
Multibeam Data Acquisition and Processing
Data were acquired during the 2018 RV Tangaroa voyage TAN 1806, a component of the international project QUOI: âQuantitative Ocean-column Imaging using hydroacoustic sourcesâ (). The TAN1806 survey employed Kongsberg EM 2040 (200Â kHz) and EM302 (30Â kHz) MBES to map the Calypso HVF, operated synchronously. Both MBES systems are hull-mounted on RV Tangaroa. MBES compensation occurred at the start of the voyage at the NIWA test-patch sites in Palliser Bay and Palliser Bank, Aotearoa/New Zealand. Calibration was undertaken over multiple depths on seafloor zones with flat, homogenous sedimentology of silt or sand (; ; ). Lines were run for each MBES setting (frequency/pulse) anticipated. Backscatter correction curves were generated to compensate for beam pattern variations by: 1) removing all Kongsberg backscatter corrections, 2) modeling the backscatter angular variations, and 3) modeling the EM302 transducer beam pattern.
Sound velocity profiles (SVP) were taken at 12-h intervals during operations, 3-h intervals during compensation, at the start of new mapping areas, or when noticeable artefacts appeared in the data. MBES data were acquired via Kongsberg Seafloor Information System (SIS) software (v4.2.1) and cleaned in Caris HIPS/SIPS (v10.4). Vessel position, motion, SVP, and tidal corrections were merged with raw range/angle data to generate geolocated soundings. Manual cleaning removed remaining invalid soundings and data spikes. A bathymetric grid at 5Â m resolution was produced in NZTM projection (EPSG:2193) (Figure 1B).
Active Fluid Expulsion Identification
Active fluid expulsion was identified in the EM302 MBES (30Â kHz) water-column backscatter data using the QPS FM Mid-Water (v7.7.4) Feature Detect tool. Acoustic anomalies detected were analyzed in QPS Fledermaus (v7.7.4) (Figure 2). Acoustic anomalies that were attached to the seafloor, âflares,â were classed as potential fluid expulsion features or âseeps,â indicative of gas bubbles emitting from the seafloor. Point clusters of potential seeps were exported to MATLAB and filtered based on a maximum distance between points (40Â m), minimum number of points (200), and aspect ratio (1) of each cluster. A seafloor or âseep baseâ location was determined for each seep; locations were exported as a point shapefile.
FIGURE 2
Bathymetric Derivatives
Bathymetric derivatives were calculated in the ArcGIS spatial analysis toolbox Benthic Terrain Modeler (BTM; v3.0) (
TABLE 1
| Derivative | Description | Unit | Software |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bathymetry | Water depth | Meters | Spatial AnalystâArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Slope | The gradient or ârate-of-maximum changeâ in degree units. Calculated according to Hornâs algorithm | Degrees (0â90°) | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Curvature | Slope of slope; derivative of ârate-of-maximum changeâ. Highlights landform boundaries (e.g. ridges) that influence current regimes | Degrees per meter | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Profile curvature | Curvature in the direction of slope. Highlights terraces and scarps | Degrees per meter | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Plan curvature | Curvature perpendicular to slope. Highlights flow lines | Change of degrees per meter | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Broad bathymetric position index (bBPI) | A measure of referenced location relative to the overall terrain that highlights broad scale highs and lows, e.g. Slopes and depressions. A modification of topographic position index (Weiss, 2001). Parameters: 50â100Â m | Unitless | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Fine bathymetric position index (fBPI) | A measure of referenced location relative to the overall terrain that highlights fine scale highs and lows, e.g. Narrow crests, mid-slope depressions. A modification of topographic position index (Weiss, 2001). Parameters: 10â50Â m | Unitless | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Vector ruggedness measure (VRM) | A measure of surface roughness/rugosity | Unitless | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Aspect | A measure of surface direction, clockwise from north | Degrees (0â359.9°) | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Northerness | A secondary measure of surface calculation, from due south to due north. Values range from 1 to â1 | Unitless | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Easterness | A secondary measure of surface calculation, from due west to due east. Values range from 1 to â1 | Unitless | BTM v3.0âArcGIS v10.5.1 |
| Brightness | A measure of mean layer intensity (brightness) of a segmentâs pixel values and brightness in relation to another segmentâs pixel values | Decibels | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| Max. Difference | A measure of the maximum difference in brightness (mean intensity) levels between two image layers | Decibels | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| Mean 200Â kHz | Average backscatter of the EM 2040 200Â kHz mosaic | Decibels | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| Mean 30Â kHz | Average backscatter of the EM302 30Â kHz mosaic | Decibels | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| Std-dev 200Â kHz | Standard deviation of EM 2040 200Â kHz backscatter values | Decibels | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| Std-dev 30Â kHz | Standard deviation of EM302 30Â kHz backscatter values | Decibels | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| Skew 200Â kHz | Skewness of EM 2040 200Â kHz backscatter values | Decibels | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| Skew 20Â kHz | Skewness of EM302 30Â kHz backscatter values | Decibels | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| GLCM homogeneity | A measure of closeness of the distribution of elements in the GLCM diagonal | Unitless | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| GLCM contrast | A measure of intensity contrast between a pixel and its neighbor over the entire image; a âsum of squares varianceâ GLCM contrast measures the amount of local variation in an image. Opposite to GLCM homogeneity. Weights increase exponentially | Unitless | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| GLCM dissimilarity | A measure like contrast but increases linearly. High if the local region has high contrast | Unitless | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| GLCM entropy | Measures high if the elements in the GLCM are equally distributed; measure low if the elements of the GLCM are closer to 0 or 1 | Unitless | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| GLCM angular second moment | A measure of local homogeneity; high if some elements are large and the remaining elements are small | Unitless | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| GLCM mean | A measure of the average expressed in terms of the GLCM. Each pixel value is weighted by the frequency of its co-occurrence with a neighbor pixel value | Unitless | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| GLCM standard deviation | A measure of the standard deviation expressed in terms of the GLCM calculated by the co-occurrence of reference and neighbor pixel values | Unitless | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
| GLCM correlation | A measure of linear dependency of a reference pixel to a neighbor pixel | Unitless | Trimble eCognition v9.4 |
Bathymetric and backscatter derivatives generated for modelling. All bathymetric derivatives are calculated using a moving 3 Ã 3 window (Mooreâs neighborhood).
Seafloor Backscatter
MBES seafloor backscatter data were imported into SonarScope software (IFREMER, France;
FIGURE 3

Original Calypso HVF EM 2040 (200Â kHz) backscatter mosaic (A), and Calypso HVF EM302 (30Â kHz) backscatter mosaic (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), (M), (N), (O), (P) insets show detailed comparisons between the two backscatter mosaics. High backscatter intensities (high reflectivity = harder substrate) are lighter; low backscatter intensities (low reflectivity = softer substrates) are darker. Blue lines are 50Â m contours; mosaic resolution 2Â m; projection NZTM. Very dark areas (black) in the 30Â kHz mosaic show acquisition artefacts from aeration of the transducer due to rough sea conditions. Although original mosaic ranges shown include extreme outliers, color ramps are normalized here to ensure comparable grey tones. Mosaic distributions predominantly lie within â30ââ5Â dB.
An averaging filter (3 Ã 3 moving window) was passed over the backscatter mosaic to interpolate small pixel-wide gaps from missing data. Both mosaics were clipped from â30Â dB to â5 dB to remove large areas of no data and mosaic artefacts (outliers). Both mosaics were classified individually, following Jenks Natural Breaks method (
FIGURE 4

Sediment grab results and Jenks Natural Breaks backscatter classes for (A) Calypso HVF 200Â kHz mosaic, and (B) Calypso HVF 30Â kHz mosaic. Grab results show sand-dominant classes in the North and silt-dominant classes in the South (grey lines: 50Â m contours; black dots: seep base locations; mosaic resolution: 2Â m; projection: NZTM). Inset of 200Â kHz (C) and of 30Â kHz (D) show two depressions in North Calypso HVF, with grab samples within each classified as coarse or very coarse silt.
Segmentation of Seafloor Acoustic Data
Backscatter mosaics were segmented using Geographic Object Based Image Analysis (GEOBIA) to identify homogenous regions of seafloor for input into a random forest model. This was achieved using a multiresolution segmentation algorithm in eCognition software (v9.4). Three mosaic configurations were segmented, with bathymetry incorporated in each: 1) 200Â kHz backscatter only, 2) 30Â kHz backscatter only, and 3) equally weighted EM2040 and EM302 backscatter. Three regions were segmented: the full Calypso HVF dataset, the North Calypso HVF subset, and the South Calypso HVF subset. The individual Calypso HVF regions were analyzed separately to: 1) account for the large differences in acoustic response observed between the north and south (Figure 3); 2) remove the influence of poor weather acquisition artefacts in the North Calypso HVF 30Â kHz mosaic (Figure 3B); and 3) account for the historic classification of the Calypso HVFâthe North Calypso HVF region includes the data described by
Each mosaic configuration and region were segmented using seven different scale parameters (SPs): 9, 14, 26, 46, 50, 75, and 100. The Estimation of Scale Parameter tool (ESP2) (
Similar to the original Jenks classification of individual mosaics (pixel-based classification), segments were classified into five classes based on mean backscatter intensity values (derived from all pixels that contribute to a segment), following Jenks Natural Breaks method (
Textural Analysis of Backscatter Layers
Statistical attributes were generated for each segment, including brightness (combined intensity of both mosaics), maximum difference (backscatter dB difference), and the mean, standard deviation, and skewness of both the 200 and 30Â kHz mosaics (Table 1). These values are calculated from all pixel backscatter dB levels that construct each individual image segment. Each segment produces one value for each measure.
Textural values were also generated for each segment in eCognition using the Haralick grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) (
Each segmentation layer (for each mosaic configuration and SP) was exported as a shapefile with all textural and geomorphic values attached to each segment. The segment layers and a point shapefile of flare locations (from Section 3.4) were linked in ArcGIS. Segments that were co-located with flare locations were classed as âactiveâ segments and those without flare locations were classed as âinactive.â This process created attribute tables for each segmentation layer with each unique underlying textural and geomorphic values for all âactiveâ and âinactiveâ segments. Sixty-three joined attribute files were exported as a. csv file for further analysis.
Random Forest Classification
The segment attribute files exported in Section 3.6 were used as input data for random forest (RF) classification. The data encompass seven different SP (9, 14, 26, 46, 50, 75, and 100), three layers from different frequencies (30Â kHz mosaic, 200Â kHz mosaic, and a combined mosaic (equally weighted) of the two frequencies) and three regions (the full Calypso HVF dataset, the North Calypso HVF subset, and the South Calypso HVF subset).
Supervised RF models were run on each individual exported attribute file, executed in the ârandomForestâ R package (
Error matrices and model performance statistics (Kappa, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV)) were calculated for each model. Error matrices compare known class data to predicted classes in a 2 Ã 2 table (true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative). Model âgoodnessâ thresholds were determined by Kappa values. This value allows for model comparison by quantifying the accuracy of each model above that of chance: 0 = predictive power no better than chance, 0â0.2 = poor, 0.2â0.4 = fair, 0.4â0.6 = moderate, 0.6â0.8 = good and 0.8â1 = very good, 1 = perfect predictive power (
Sediment Samples
Thirty-one Van Veen sediment grabs were collected over the survey region, 14 in North Calypso HVF, eight in South Calypso HVF, and nine in the remaining Calypso HVF region (Figure 1B). A Van Veen sediment grab collected surface sediments, representing the top 30Â cm of the seabed. Grain size distributions were extracted using a Beckman Coulter LS13 320 Diffraction Particle Size Analyzer (DPSA). Results were analyzed using Gratistat v8 (
Towed Camera
Ten towed camera transects were sampled over three flares-of-interest (FOI) (FOI-01, -02, and -03; Figure 1B white boxes), where high intensity water-column acoustic flare activity was observed during the survey. A towed video camera system recorded continuous digital color video footage (Sony HDR-CX550; Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies). The video camera was weighted and mounted in a âfly frameâ to ensure a consistent altitude above the seafloor. The camera was angled at 45° to capture gas bubble and fluid release from the seafloor, with lasers spaced at 15 cm for a scale reference. Additional GoPro cameras were attached to the towed camera system for some of the camera transects, affording multiple perspectives of the seafloor.
A USBL transponder was attached to the camera deployment line (âŒ0.5 m upline from camera attachment point) and linked to the RV Tangaroa Kongsberg HiPAP system. Transects were towed at ship speeds between 0.25 and 1.0 m sâ1, with the aim of maintaining an altitude of âŒ1â2 m and a visible area of âŒ1.5â2.5 m2. A total of 17 h of towed camera and 1,127 still images were obtained over the ten transects, capturing 12 km of seafloor.
Results
Active Seafloor Fluid Expulsion Areas
A total of 3,222 individual seeps were identified over the mapped 115 km2 Calypso HVF, between water depths of 111â292 m (Figures 1, 2). The seeps occupy âŒ9 km2 of seafloor, âŒ8% of the Calypso HVF, with the remaining 92% of seafloor observed as inactive (at the time of survey). Several primary areas of active fluid expulsion were identified that agree with previous records of activity (
Seafloor Backscatter Response
The two frequencies used to map the Calypso HVF produce mosaics that have visible differences in seafloor backscatter intensity (Figure 3). Backscatter intensity values of the original 200Â kHz mosaic range between â46 and +27Â dB while the intensity values of the original 30Â kHz mosaic range between â92 and 0Â dB (Figure 3). These ranges included extreme outliers due to acquisition artefact (Figure 3). Mosaic distributions were clipped to â30ââ5Â dB (see Section 3.4 and Figure 4). Differences between the two mosaics are most obvious in the North Calypso HVF when observed with the Jenks classification (Figure 4). While very-high backscatter intensity patches (hardgrounds) are observed to largely correspond in both mosaics, the 200Â kHz mosaic has an overall higher backscatter intensity than the 30Â kHz mosaic in the vicinity of the North Calypso HVF seeps (Figure 3C (200Â kHz), d (30Â kHz); Figure 4A). The 30Â kHz mosaic also reveals more defined boundaries between hardgrounds and the surrounding seafloor while boundaries are more diffuse in the 200Â kHz mosaic (Figures 3E,F, 4D).
In the North Calypso HVF, an extensive assemblage of hardgrounds skirts the perimeter of two ovoid depressions, coinciding with the primary seep area; these patches are more conspicuous in the 30Â kHz mosaic than the 200Â kHz mosaic (Figures 3C,D, 4D). The ovoid depressions show an inverse backscatter relationshipâlower backscatter intensity in the 200Â kHz (lower intensity) and higher in the 30Â kHz (higher intensity). Two discrete very-high backscatter patches in the north-west (Figures 3E,F) and west (Figures 3G,H) largely correspond in both two mosaics.
In the South Calypso HVF, there are two large conspicuous patches (Figures 3O,P, 4A) of very-high backscatter observable in both mosaics though more obvious in the 200Â kHz mosaic. Here, a very-high intensity ring is visible in the 200Â kHz but less obvious in the 30Â kHz. Another two smaller patches of backscatter are observed. One is visible in the 200Â kHz mosaic while almost absent in the 30Â kHz (Figures 3M,N), while the second shows the inverse relationship (Figures 3A,B). Very-high backscatter intensity patches are also observed to correspond to fault scarps in the center (Figures 3K,L) and south (Figures 3O,P) of the survey area. These linear shaped patterns align with the Pukehoko and Nukuhou normal faults (Figure 2).
Seafloor Sediment
The demarcation in seafloor backscatter observed between the two sites along the central scarp region (Figures 3A,B) is mirrored in the sediment grabs as a fining (decrease in median grain size) of sediments from north to south. The average D50 (median Ï) particle size for North Calypso HVF was 3 Ï (125Â ÎŒm) and for South Calypso HVF was 6 Ï (16Â ÎŒm). As D50 particle size decreases, the difference in backscatter intensity between the two different frequency mosaics also decreases (Figure 5A). North Calypso HVF sediment grab samples exhibit a range of particle sizes from very fine sand to very coarse silt (Table 2; Figures 4A,B). Of note are samples taken from within two circular depressions which are classified as coarse or very coarse silt due to their dominant silt fraction (64 and 75% weight) (Figures 5A,B). The South Calypso HVF sediment grab samples reveal a silt-dominant substrate (Figures 4A,B), with all samples classified as medium silt (Table 2).
FIGURE 5

(A) 200 (blue circles) and 30 (orange triangles) kHz backscatter values and D50 (median Ï) particle size. All South Calypso HVF samples are highlighted within the black rectangle, where Ï > 6.0 (smallest median particle sizes). Infilled icons indicate samples from the two depressions in the North Calypso HVF. (B) 200 (blue) and 30 (orange) kHz backscatter intensity and Folk & Ward sediment classification. All South Calypso HVF samples are medium silt, highlighted within the black rectangle. Here, there is minimal overlap in range between 200 and 30Â kHz mosaic backscatter values.
TABLE 2
| Region | Sample ID | Lon. | Lat. | Folk & ward | Sand % | Silt % | Clay % | Carb. % | D50 (Ί) | Mean diam. (Ί) | Sort. (Ί) | Skew. (Ί) | dB 200 kHz | dB 30 kHz | Depth | Jenks 200 kHz | Jenks 30 kHz |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHVF | 32 | 177.0693 | â37.6540 | Very Fine Sand | 0.69 | 0.30 | 0.01 | 2.00 | 2.14 | 3.16 | 2.55 | 0.56 | â17.06 | â28.15 | â134.7 | Medium | Very low |
| CHVF | 33 | 177.0755 | â37.6601 | Very Fine Sand | 0.52 | 0.47 | 0.01 | 3.22 | 3.59 | 3.99 | 2.64 | 0.20 | â16.78 | â24.28 | â159.2 | High | Medium |
| CHVF | 35 | 177.0801 | â37.6373 | Very Fine Sand | 0.74 | 0.25 | 0.01 | 2.89 | 2.14 | 2.95 | 2.47 | 0.51 | â15.18 | nan | â142.1 | High | FALSE |
| CHVF | 51 | 177.1108 | â37.6322 | Very Fine Sand | 0.65 | 0.34 | 0.01 | 1.86 | 2.67 | 3.48 | 2.51 | 0.43 | â17.56 | â28.23 | â168.4 | Medium | Very low |
| CHVF | 92 | 177.1453 | â37.6137 | Very Fine Sand | 0.58 | 0.41 | 0.02 | 3.50 | 3.20 | 3.88 | 2.58 | 0.33 | â15.93 | â29.07 | â216.1 | High | Very low |
| NCHVF | 37 | 177.0624 | â37.6294 | Very Fine Sand | 0.72 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 3.14 | 2.25 | 3.13 | 2.53 | 0.52 | â15.94 | â26.57 | â132.8 | High | Low |
| NCHVF | 43 | 177.1032 | â37.6008 | Very Fine Sand | 0.73 | 0.27 | 0.00 | 3.76 | 2.08 | 2.96 | 2.50 | 0.52 | â15.62 | â28.81 | â175.7 | High | Very low |
| NCHVF | 87 | 177.0774 | â37.6140 | Very Fine Sand | 0.71 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 1.62 | 2.47 | 3.23 | 2.33 | 0.48 | â14.40 | â28.58 | â148.8 | Very high | Very low |
| NCHVF | 88 | 177.0772 | â37.6143 | Very Fine Sand | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.01 | 0.65 | 2.95 | 3.81 | 2.53 | 0.40 | â16.23 | â26.68 | â148.4 | High | Low |
| CHVF | 34 | 177.0837 | â37.6544 | Fine Sand | 0.79 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 1.60 | 1.97 | 2.69 | 2.18 | 0.56 | â16.37 | â21.67 | â146.2 | High | High |
| CHVF | 85 | 177.0320 | â37.6626 | Fine Sand | 0.73 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 1.77 | 2.79 | 2.63 | 0.59 | â16.67 | â25.57 | â120.1 | High | Low |
| NCHVF | 42 | 177.1032 | â37.6010 | Fine Sand | 0.81 | 0.19 | 0.01 | 3.33 | 1.69 | 2.40 | 2.33 | 0.52 | â16.39 | â26.94 | â175.3 | High | Low |
| NCHVF | 45 | 177.0931 | â37.6102 | Fine Sand | 0.82 | 0.18 | 0.01 | 2.01 | 1.91 | 2.59 | 2.06 | 0.54 | â17.19 | â28.56 | â165.3 | Medium | Very low |
| NCHVF | 90 | 177.1189 | â37.5963 | Fine Sand | 0.77 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 4.25 | 2.11 | 2.85 | 2.33 | 0.51 | â13.51 | â24.78 | â214.2 | Very high | Medium |
| NCHVF | 36 | 177.0944 | â37.6306 | Medium Sand | 0.91 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 1.37 | 1.43 | 1.66 | 1.79 | 0.16 | â15.23 | â28.87 | â163.9 | High | Very low |
| SCHVF | 63 | 177.1117 | â37.6648 | Medium Silt | 0.03 | 0.93 | 0.04 | 5.56 | 6.43 | 6.48 | 1.51 | 0.05 | â18.12 | â25.02 | â169.5 | Medium | Medium |
| SCHVF | 64 | 177.0853 | â37.6825 | Medium Silt | 0.04 | 0.94 | 0.02 | 3.82 | 6.35 | 6.34 | 1.41 | â0.01 | â18.07 | â22.53 | â175.7 | Medium | High |
| SCHVF | 77 | 177.1321 | â37.6872 | Medium Silt | 0.07 | 0.91 | 0.02 | 4.43 | 6.24 | 6.21 | 1.55 | -0.02 | â19.36 | â23.23 | â195.8 | Low | High |
| SCHVF | 78 | 177.1333 | â37.6821 | Medium Silt | 0.04 | 0.93 | 0.03 | 5.40 | 6.40 | 6.41 | 1.50 | 0.01 | â20.47 | â20.80 | â196.5 | Low | Very high |
| SCHVF | 79 | 177.1136 | â37.6944 | Medium Silt | 0.05 | 0.93 | 0.02 | 5.41 | 6.38 | 6.35 | 1.46 | -0.02 | â20.59 | â21.95 | â177.0 | Low | High |
| SCHVF | 81 | 177.0972 | â37.6946 | Medium Silt | 0.14 | 0.83 | 0.03 | 4.28 | 6.26 | 6.09 | 1.87 | â0.13 | â17.14 | â28.56 | â190.2 | Medium | Very low |
| SCHVF | 82 | 177.0637 | â37.6868 | Medium Silt | 0.03 | 0.95 | 0.02 | 5.12 | 6.37 | 6.38 | 1.40 | 0.02 | â20.89 | â22.23 | â156.8 | Low | High |
| SCHVF | 83 | 177.0659 | â37.6742 | Medium Silt | 0.05 | 0.93 | 0.02 | 4.92 | 6.31 | 6.31 | 1.48 | 0.01 | â18.53 | â20.44 | â156.5 | Medium | Very high |
| NCHVF | 52 | 177.1191 | â37.6128 | Coarse Silt | 0.24 | 0.75 | 0.01 | 4.69 | 5.94 | 5.56 | 2.12 | â0.23 | â17.78 | â23.70 | â191.3 | Medium | Medium |
| NCHVF | 91 | 177.1336 | â37.5984 | Coarse Silt | 0.30 | 0.68 | 0.02 | 3.74 | 5.42 | 5.27 | 2.35 | â0.11 | â17.32 | â21.31 | â232.5 | Medium | High |
| NCHVF | 109 | 177.1025 | â37.6223 | Coarse Silt | 0.34 | 0.64 | 0.02 | 6.60 | 5.19 | 5.21 | 2.10 | 0.03 | â17.54 | â21.19 | â182.8 | Medium | High |
| CHVF | 84 | 177.0478 | â37.6635 | Very Coarse Silt | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.01 | 3.80 | 4.38 | 4.23 | 2.70 | â0.03 | â16.25 | nan | â135.6 | High | FALSE |
| CHVF | 93 | 177.1015 | â37.6391 | Very Coarse Silt | 0.40 | 0.59 | 0.00 | 3.30 | 4.93 | 4.78 | 2.18 | â0.07 | â17.48 | â23.86 | â172.4 | Medium | Medium |
| NCHVF | 49 | 177.1009 | â37.6226 | Very Coarse Silt | 0.62 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 1.71 | 3.24 | 4.09 | 2.16 | 0.50 | â19.83 | â22.37 | â181.1 | Low | High |
| NCHVF | 55 | 177.1179 | â37.6091 | Very Coarse Silt | 0.53 | 0.45 | 0.02 | 4.45 | 3.59 | 4.11 | 2.65 | 0.24 | â16.03 | -26.84 | â187.5 | High | Low |
| NCHVF | 89 | 177.1042 | â37.5882 | Very Coarse Silt | 0.42 | 0.57 | 0.01 | 4.21 | 4.86 | 4.66 | 2.56 | â0.07 | â16.17 | â25.36 | â234.4 | High | Medium |
Sediment grab Folk and Ward classes, composition, and corresponding Jenks Natural Breaks acoustic classes for both mosaics.
Backscatter Segmentation
All 200Â kHz-derived GEOBIA segments and most of the 30Â kHz-derived and combined mosaic GEOBIA segments have irregular shapes for all SPs, aligning with observed natural features in both the bathymetry and backscatter (subsets shown in Figure 6 show SP46 for the NCHVF and SP75 for the SCHVF, the two best performing models for each region). Segments that do not align with natural features within the 30Â kHz or combined segmentation are due to artefacts in the mosaics (i.e. predominantly artefacts that are a result of aeration of the transducer due to rough sea conditions).
FIGURE 6

Seeps (black dots), segmentation (white lines), and Jenks Natural Breaks re-classification of segments (colours) based on distribution of mean backscatter levels. Row names refer to location on inset map. First two rows (A-H) show North Calypso HVF subsets of the segmentation with SP46 (the best performing NCHVF model); bottom two rows (I-P) show South Calypso HVF subsets of the segmentation with SP75 (the best performing SCHVF model). First column (A,E,I,M) shows Jenks classes of mean 200Â kHz backscatter values. Second column (B,F,J,N) shows segment Jenks classes of mean 30Â kHz backscatter values. Third column (C,G,K,O) shows comparison of very-high backscatter segments of the 200Â kHz (purple with black outline) and 30Â kHz (green) segments, with other segments removed. Green (30Â kHz) segments with a dark outline are overprinted 200Â kHz very-high segments. Top of fourth column (D,H) show segments with mean negative (cream segments) and positive (navy segments) skew of the 30Â kHz mosaic, the most important variable in the North Calypso HVF best performing model. Bottom of fourth column (L,P) show the vector ruggedness measure (rugosity) bathymetric derivative layer, overlain by seeps, the most important variable in the South Calypso HVF best performing model.
As SP increased, segments that delineate very-high backscatter areas remained mostly stable while segments that delineate homogenous areas of seafloor increased in size (Figure 6). Segments that delineate scarps also remain stable at higher SP levels (Figures 6E,F,I,J). Though the ESP2 tool provides a repeatable and objective method for selecting SPs, we found the chosen SPs did not adequately identify boundaries of the hardground areas. Smaller SPs (SP9, SP14, and SP26), resulted in over segmentation, where too many segments were created without delineating conspicuous natural boundaries of features. These SPs resulted in highly granular segments, demarcating contiguous very-high backscatter areas into small segments.
Prediction Model Results for Seep Presence
Due to the imbalance of examples between âactiveâ and âinactiveâ areas (Section 3.8) standard model accuracy levels give a poor representation of âgoodnessâ as the models correctly predict âinactiveâ areas far better than âactiveâ areas. Of the 63 models run in this study, three were considered good, with Kappa >0.6 (
TABLE 3
| Model | Mosaic | SP | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Kappa | Goodness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCHVF04 | combined | 46 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.94 | 0.64 | good |
| NCHVF06 | combined | 75 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.89 | 0.62 | good |
| NCHVF05 | combined | 50 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.62 | 0.95 | 0.61 | good |
| NCHVF20 | 30Â kHz | 75 | 0.71 | 0.84 | 0.73 | 0.83 | 0.55 | moderate |
| NCHVF21 | 30Â kHz | 100 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.52 | moderate |
| NCHVF18 | 30Â kHz | 46 | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.58 | 0.89 | 0.49 | moderate |
| NCHVF19 | 30Â kHz | 50 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.59 | 0.88 | 0.49 | moderate |
| NCHVF12 | 200Â kHz | 50 | 0.70 | 0.83 | 0.55 | 0.91 | 0.49 | moderate |
| NCHVF03 | combined | 26 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 0.45 | 0.78 | 0.46 | moderate |
| NCHVF13 | 200Â kHz | 75 | 0.71 | 0.78 | 0.58 | 0.86 | 0.46 | moderate |
| NCHVF11 | 200Â kHz | 46 | 0.72 | 0.79 | 0.51 | 0.90 | 0.45 | moderate |
| NCHVF17 | 30Â kHz | 26 | 0.74 | 0.82 | 0.44 | 0.94 | 0.44 | moderate |
| NCHVF14 | 200Â kHz | 100 | 0.77 | 0.69 | 0.59 | 0.84 | 0.43 | moderate |
| NCHVF07 | combined | 100 | 0.62 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.42 | moderate |
| NCHVF10 | 200Â kHz | 26 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.38 | 0.96 | 0.40 | fair |
| NCHVF09 | 200Â kHz | 14 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.31 | 0.98 | 0.37 | fair |
| NCHVF16 | 30Â kHz | 14 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.32 | 0.98 | 0.36 | fair |
| NCHVF02 | combined | 14 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.27 | 0.97 | 0.31 | fair |
| NCHVF08 | 200Â kHz | 9 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 0.24 | 0.98 | 0.29 | fair |
| NCHVF01 | combined | 9 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.24 | 0.98 | 0.29 | fair |
| NCHVF15 | 30Â kHz | 9 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.22 | 0.99 | 0.27 | fair |
North Calypso HVF random forest results ordered by Kappa score.
The second-best performing model, NCHVF06 (combined mosaic, SP75, accuracy: 0.82) had a lower Kappa (0.62) though higher PPV (0.73) than the best performing model, being better at predicting seep segments. NCHVF05, the third âgoodâ model, had highest overall accuracy (0.84) but lower Kappa (0.61) and lower PPV (0.62). The NCHVF12 model (30Â kHz mosaic, SP100, Kappa: 0.52) had the highest PPV of 0.73 and NPV of 0.79. Of the SP levels selected by the ESP tool, only SP46 revealed a good model relationship.
The combined mosaic model with SP 75 (Table 4) was the best performing model for the South Calypso HVF (SCHVF) (SCHVF06; Kappa: 0.57, âmoderate,â accuracy: 0.81); this was also the model with highest PPV (0.61) (Figure 10). We found no significant difference between the combined model or the individual mosaic models with equivalent SP: SCHVF20 (30Â kHz, SP75, Kappa: 0.56, accuracy: 0.85) and SCHVF13 (200Â kHz, SP75, Kappa: 0.55, accuracy: 0.85), the second and third best performing models, respectively, for the South Calypso HVF. Of the SP levels selected by the ESP tool, none revealed a good model relationship.
TABLE 4
| Model | Mosaic | SP | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Kappa | Goodness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCHVF06 | combined | 75 | 0.77 | 0.85 | 0.61 | 0.92 | 0.57 | moderate |
| SCHVF20 | 30Â kHz | 75 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.53 | 0.96 | 0.56 | moderate |
| SCHVF13 | 200Â kHz | 75 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.53 | 0.97 | 0.55 | moderate |
| SCHVF18 | 30Â kHz | 46 | 0.78 | 0.90 | 0.45 | 0.97 | 0.50 | moderate |
| SCHVF07 | combined | 100 | 0.87 | 0.77 | 0.50 | 0.96 | 0.50 | moderate |
| SCHVF12 | 200Â kHz | 50 | 0.91 | 0.79 | 0.41 | 0.98 | 0.46 | moderate |
| SCHVF04 | combined | 46 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.39 | 0.97 | 0.43 | moderate |
| SCHVF03 | combined | 26 | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.35 | 0.98 | 0.43 | moderate |
| SCHVF21 | 30Â kHz | 100 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.48 | 0.91 | 0.42 | moderate |
| SCHVF17 | 30Â kHz | 26 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.35 | 0.98 | 0.42 | moderate |
| SCHVF05 | combined | 50 | 0.83 | 0.82 | 0.36 | 0.98 | 0.42 | moderate |
| SCHVF10 | 200Â kHz | 26 | 0.86 | 0.81 | 0.34 | 0.98 | 0.40 | fair |
| SCHVF19 | 30Â kHz | 50 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.59 | 0.88 | 0.39 | fair |
| SCHVF14 | 200Â kHz | 100 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.41 | 0.91 | 0.34 | fair |
| SCHVF02 | combined | 14 | 0.97 | 0.85 | 0.25 | 0.99 | 0.32 | fair |
| SCHVF11 | 200Â kHz | 46 | 0.70 | 0.84 | 0.27 | 0.97 | 0.31 | fair |
| SCHVF09 | 200Â kHz | 14 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.21 | 0.99 | 0.29 | fair |
| SCHVF16 | 30Â kHz | 14 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.20 | 0.99 | 0.27 | fair |
| SCHVF08 | 200Â kHz | 9 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.16 | 0.99 | 0.23 | fair |
| SCHVF15 | 30Â kHz | 9 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.16 | 0.99 | 0.23 | fair |
| SCHVF01 | combined | 9 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.16 | 0.99 | 0.22 | fair |
South Calypso HVF random forest results ordered by Kappa score.
The CHVF20 30Â kHz mosaic model with SP 75 (Table 5) was the best performing model for the full Calypso HVF, incorporating all data including artefacts (Kappa: 0.51, âmoderate,â accuracy: 0.86). The best performing model for predicting seeps, with a PPV of 0.54, was CHVF07 (combined mosaics, SP100, Kappa: 0.50, accuracy: 0.79), the second-best performing model for the full Calypso HVF. All the SP levels selected by the ESP tool (SP14, SP26, and SP46) were ranked as âfairâ models.
TABLE 5
| Model | Mosaic | SP | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Kappa | Goodness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHVF20 | 30Â kHz | 75 | 0.96 | 0.80 | 0.46 | 0.98 | 0.51 | moderate |
| CHVF07 | combined | 100 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.54 | 0.93 | 0.50 | moderate |
| CHVF06 | combined | 75 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.48 | 0.94 | 0.47 | moderate |
| CHVF14 | 200Â kHz | 100 | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.46 | 0.95 | 0.45 | moderate |
| CHVF13 | 200Â kHz | 75 | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.48 | 0.93 | 0.45 | moderate |
| CHVF11 | 200Â kHz | 46 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.42 | 0.96 | 0.44 | moderate |
| CHVF05 | combined | 50 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.41 | 0.96 | 0.44 | moderate |
| CHVF18 | 30Â kHz | 46 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.40 | 0.97 | 0.44 | moderate |
| CHVF19 | 30Â kHz | 50 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.41 | 0.95 | 0.42 | moderate |
| CHVF04 | combined | 46 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 0.42 | moderate |
| CHVF12 | 200Â kHz | 50 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.39 | 0.95 | 0.39 | fair |
| CHVF17 | 30Â kHz | 26 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.29 | 0.98 | 0.35 | fair |
| CHVF21 | 30Â kHz | 100 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.41 | 0.90 | 0.34 | fair |
| CHVF10 | 200Â kHz | 26 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.29 | 0.97 | 0.33 | fair |
| CHVF03 | combined | 26 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.29 | 0.97 | 0.33 | fair |
| CHVF16 | 30Â kHz | 14 | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.19 | 0.99 | 0.24 | fair |
| CHVF09 | 200Â kHz | 14 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.187 | 0.99 | 0.24 | fair |
| CHVF02 | combined | 14 | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.19 | 0.99 | 0.24 | fair |
| CHVF01 | combined | 9 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.14 | 0.99 | 0.19 | poor |
| CHVF08 | 200Â kHz | 9 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.13 | 0.99 | 0.18 | poor |
| CHVF15 | 30Â kHz | 9 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.13 | 0.99 | 0.17 | poor |
Full Calypso HVF random forest results ordered by Kappa score.
Hardgrounds and Correctly Predicted Seep Presence
By applying a Jenks Natural Breaks classification to the updated distribution of mean backscatter values for each mosaic (moving from a pixel-based distribution to a segment-based distribution) we determined where high or very-high backscatter areas (âhardgroundsâ) are in the Calypso HVF and how they may correlate with water column acoustic flares (âactive fluid expulsionâ).
For the best performing model, NCHVF04 (North Calypso HVF, combined mosaics, SP46), only 1.5% (0.51Â km2) of the total area has very-high backscatter values in the 200Â kHz mosaic (â14.0 to â8.8Â dB) while 5.8% (1.94Â km2) of the total area has very-high backscatter values in the 30Â kHz mosaic (â2.4 to â7.2Â dB) (Figure 10C).
Of the very-high 200Â kHz backscatter segments, 0.3Â km2 (0.87% of the total North Calypso HVF area) were also true positives (i.e. correctly predicted active fluid expulsion segments) while 0.2Â km2 (0.67% of the total North Calypso HVF area) were false positives (i.e. incorrectly predicted active fluid expulsion) segments. Of the very-high 30Â kHz backscatter segments, only 0.07Â km2 were true positives; 1.37Â km2 were false positives (Figure 10C). The remainder comprised true negatives and false negatives.
Predictor Variable Importance
The nine most important predictor variables for the best performing model, NCHVF04 (combined 30 and 200Â kHz, SP46), include a combination of backscatter and bathymetric derived variables (Figure 7A). Skewness of 30Â kHz, the distribution asymmetry of backscatter values from the pixels that construct a segment, has the highest relative importance to all other variables, meaning this variable would have the most negative impact on the model accuracy if removed. Segments with positive skew (segments that were made up of a majority of low mean dB values with a few very-high values in the tail, i.e. areas of soft sediment with flares) were aligned with areas that contained known seeps, (Figures 6D,H). Ruggedness and slope were the next most important predictor variables for NCHVF04. Mean EM2040 backscatter values (i.e. mean 200Â kHz values that contribute to each segment) was the fifth most important variable. For the second-best performing model, NCHVF06, skewness of 30Â kHz was the most important variable while it was third most important for the third best model NCHVF05.
FIGURE 7

Variable importance plots of the âmean decrease in accuracyâ measure. (A) North Calypso HVF best performing model NCHVF04: combined mosaics, SP46; (B) South Calypso HVF best performing model SCHVF06: combined mosaics, SP75.
The seven most important predictor variables for model SCHVF06 (combined 30 and 200Â kHz, SP75) were a combination of backscatter and bathymetric derived variables, with vector ruggedness measure the most important (Figures 6L,P, 7B). Ruggedness has the highest relative importance to all other variables, i.e. if removed, this variable would reduce the model accuracy the most. Fine bathymetric position index was the next most important variable. Skewness of the 30Â kHz was 13th in relative importance for this model.
Seafloor Observations
Towed camera footage, though biased toward discrete seafloor areas of interest, provides additional information about active seafloor fluid expulsion that accords with model results. Though not spatially extensive, video footage confirms the assumption that very-high backscatter classes are due to indurated or lithified seafloor. Carbonate platforms and lithified seafloor observed in the towed camera aligned with high and very-high backscatter areas observed in the mosaics (Figure 8). This relationship was more obvious however in the 30 kHz mosaic and for FOI-02 and -03 (Figures 8D,E, 9). No shell hash, mussel beds, or other potential reflectors traditionally also associated with fluid expulsion zones, and potential causes of high seafloor backscatter, where observed in the video footage. FOI-01 in the North Calypso HVF (Figures 8A,B) exhibits a high intensity of fluid expulsion coinciding with bioturbated sediment (Figure 9.1-3). Videos show shimmery fluid (due to density differences) escaping from the perimeters of anhydrite mounds (âŒ1 m diameter) covered in white filamentous bacteria (Figure 9.4-6); less intensive bubble expulsion was also observed. This fluid expulsion coincided with very-high backscatter in the 200 kHz mosaic (Figure 8A) and broadly low backscatter with smaller patches of very-high backscatter in the 30 kHz mosaic (Figure 8B).
FIGURE 8

Towed camera transects (black lines) for three features of interest (FOI; see Figure 1B for locations) mapped over 200Â kHz mosaic (A,C,E) and 30Â kHz mosaic (B,D,E) show a variety of substrates both with and without active fluid expulsion. Black dots - seep base locations; mosaic resolution 2Â m; projection NZTM; white lines: segments of best performing models for North (SP46 combined) and South (SP75 combined). Numbers correspond to still images in Figure 9.
FIGURE 9

Still images for three features of interest (FOI; see Figure 1B for FOI locations). Numbers correspond to approximate locations along towed camera transects in Figure 8. White dashed lines highlight where fluid was observed exiting the seafloor; white circles highlight observable bubbles.
FOI-02 in the South Calypso HVF (Figures 8C,D) hosted a wide variety of substrates: sedimented regions with high-flux fluid expulsion (Figure 9.7); bioturbated sediment (as evidenced by active burrowing within surface sediment) with gas expulsion (Figure 9.8); hardground regions with low-flux fluid expulsion from the perimeters of, or in between, broken platforms (Figure 9.9) or rocky piles of hardgrounds (Figure 9.10); occasional anemone gardens (Figure 9.9) and mussel beds (Figure 9.10); areas of extensive white filamentous bacterial mats with very-high-flux gas and liquid expulsion (Figure 9.11). Of note were the many instances of liquid and gas bubble expulsion at the same area of seabed, with one high flux gas and fluid expulsion area of rocky substrate blanketed by thick white bacterial mats (Figure 9.12). These hardground regions coincided with very-high backscatter intensity in both mosaics. Other very-high backscatter intensity patches in the South Calypso HVF survey area were not sampled with the towed camera.
FOI-03 in the North Calypso HVF (Figures 8E,F), hosts fluid expulsion coinciding with a broad break of slope (Figure 1B). This seafloor was characterized by: bioturbated sedimented regions with no fluid expulsion (Figure 9.13); white and lilac colored filamentous bacterial with and without gas bubble expulsion (Figure 9.14), with lilac colored bacteria corresponding with areas of minimal fluid expulsion (Figure 9.15); âŒ0.5 m diameter anhydrite mounds with high flux liquid expulsion (observed in towed camera footage as shimmery film) (Figure 9.16); hardground regions with lower flux gas bubble expulsion, from the perimeters of, or in between, broken platforms (Figure 9.17) and rocky piles of hardgrounds; and occasional anemone gardens (Figure 9.18). Here, hardground areas corresponded to very-high backscatter intensity in the 30 kHz mosaic and also in the 200 kHz mosaic, though the overall very-high intensity signal of the 200 kHz mosaic obscured direct comparisons between very-high 200 kHz values and seafloor observations. More extensive and very-high backscatter intensity patches in the North Calypso HVF survey area were not sampled with the towed camera on this survey.
Discussion
Quantitative Links Between Active Seepage and Seafloor Characteristics
We were able to link water-column acoustic flares (as an active fluid expulsion proxy) to specific backscatter and bathymetric derivatives of the seafloor using RF models at a shallow hydrothermal vent field. The best performing model (North Calypso HVF, combined mosaics, SP46, with overall accuracy: 0.75; PPV: 0.67; Kappa accuracy: 0.65) demonstrated the potential of using GEOBIA analysis, image segmentation, and RF modelling to predict regions of potential fluid expulsion based on seafloor characteristics (Figure 10). Although the South Calypso models were not as accurate, they still performed well in highlighting areas where active fluid expulsion were observed (Figure 10).
FIGURE 10

Final model predictions for the best performing models of (A) North Calypso HVF (SP46) and (B) South Calypso HVF (SP75) with seep locations (black dots) overlain, alongside (C) segment area and very-high backscatter area confusion matrix results for the best performing NCHVF model.
We were unable however to link gas flares specifically to âhardgrounds,â or very-high backscatter areas. Although areas of very-high backscatter areas in the 200Â kHz mosaic were associated with predicted seep locations in the North, very-high backscatter dominated the whole mosaic most likely due to sand-dominant seafloor surface substrate overprinting discrete hardground areas, including areas that lacked seeps (Figure 8A). This finding contradicted what was observed in the 30Â kHz mosaic, with seeps associated with a range of backscatter values, from low to very-high. These results however, combined with those provided by the RF variable importance measure, provide us with initial seafloor indicators associated with active fluid expulsion.
Implications for Predictive Modelling of Active Fluid Expulsion
Whilst we demonstrate from this example that areas of very-high seafloor backscatter are not good predictors of gas flares in this context, we suggest finer-scale textural indicators may be a useful tool to determine locations of active seeps. Skewness of the 30Â kHz mosaic segments, whereby segments with positive skew were associated with known seeps, was the most influential variable in the best performing model and ranked highly in most of the other models. Positive skew describes the long-tailed distribution of all the 30Â kHz pixels that contribute to each segment, with a higher density of relatively lower pixel values with few much higher values (the positive tail). This corresponds to textures observable in the 30Â kHz mosaic, for e.g. Figure 8B, where discrete patches of high to very-high backscatter values are scattered among surrounding lower backscatter values.
Towed camera footage shows a similar relationshipâareas of rubble or broken hardgrounds with minimal to no fluid flux were interspersed with unconsolidated sediment that hosted the most ebullient seeps (Figure 9). Although we found smaller SPs did not contribute to any of the best performing models, segment skewness may more aptly capture the fine-scale seafloor textures that are lost when using segmentation and GEOBIA methods, while still allowing for noise inherent in seafloor backscatter mosaics to be accounted for.
A Combined Frequency Approach to Improve Model Accuracy
Results from the Calypso HVF demonstrate that combining backscatter mosaics from multiple frequencies increased model accuracy compared to using individual mosaics. The combined models were the best performers for both the North and South Calypso HVFs. We suggest the improved predictive power, compared to a single frequency, is achieved by capturing information from both surface backscatter and notable acoustic returns in the immediate sub seafloor surface.
The usefulness of using a lower frequency sounder, or combining two frequency sounders, for classifying the seafloor and interpreting sediment at depth has been demonstrated elsewhere.
Factors Affecting Model Accuracy
We propose differences in model accuracy between the North and South Calypso HVF are the result of two different seep settings, both in surrounding substrate and seep style, and may imply two distinct or diverging seep systems. We also speculate that a complex arrangement of precipitated minerals, including hydrothermal sulfates (e.g. anhydrites) as well as carbonates, may be producing the very-high seafloor backscatter anomalies at the seafloor surface of the two sites. Overprinting by terrigenous and volcanic sediments may also affect model accuracy due to hardground burial however sedimentation rates in the Bay of Plenty, in particular the Calypso site are relatively low (in the order of decimeters per 10,000Â years) (
The South Calypso HVF seeps are represented by the very-high backscatter mounds surrounded by medium silt seafloor (predominantly low backscatter in the 200Â kHz and medium in the 30Â kHz mosaic). The North Calypso HVF in contrast exhibits a constellation of seeps over varying substrate types. The South Calypso HVF is nearer to the WhakatÄne Graben axis than the North and noticeably, the South Calypso HVF seep clusters exhibit more ebullient liquid and gas flux in video footage than what we observed in the North. This nearness of the South Calypso HVF to the graben axis, its more active appearance, and more discrete emplacement style lacking extensive hardgrounds may imply a younger hydrothermal seep than the North. In addition, a higher abundance of gas at depth in the South Calypso HVF sediments may contribute to the higher intensity response observed in the 30Â kHz mosaic. The relatively lower gas flux, compared to the South, and extensive sediment settling on most of the hardground platforms observed in the towed camera suggest the North hardground areas are less active and have been emplaced over a longer period of time (thousands of years) (
Improvements and Future Applications
Fine tuning our approach may lead to more sophisticated means of locating and differentiating between active and relict fluid expulsion areas. Additional recommendations for future mapping might consider the following elements in each step of the modeling pathway.
Acquisition
A stratified random sampling regime, combined with more extensive video footage to observe first order indications of active and inactive fluid expulsion, would allow more robust associations between gas flares/fluid expulsion and seafloor characteristics. This would allow the unique seafloor textural differences associated with both to be captured and fully modeled. A single-pass survey using an integrated multi-spectral system for multi-frequency seafloor analysis (
Processing
Seep identification using higher frequency (200Â kHz) water-column acoustic data would allow us to interrogate more forms of fluid expulsion. We identified fluid expulsion using 30Â kHz water-column acoustic data which favors gas expulsion. Additional fluid expulsion evidence may be found in the 200Â kHz water-column data, e.g. liquid expulsion that lacks a gas fraction. Image segmentation and pre-classification could also be used to remove obvious artefacts prior to segmentation.
Modelling
Sampling hardground platforms in both regions, to determine sediment mineralogy, combined with acoustic information, discrete camera sampling, and geochronology could be used to determine the genesis or timescales of the active fluid expulsion regions. Additionally, seep differences could be modeled to further understand seafloor modifications possible within of a sediment-hosted geothermal system.
Conclusion
We demonstrate that a dual frequency approach, within the bounds of a MBES survey, leads to improved seep prediction. Combining the penetration and resolution of two distinct MBES frequencies can provide added value for the interpretation of seafloor structure from backscatter data. Understanding the potential of different acoustic frequencies when targeting specific seafloor substrates is necessary to inform decisions of vessel choice or limitations when preparing for a survey of a key substrate type. We show that extensive and precise ground-truthing (through video, grabs, and cores) that enable strong associations between paired or multi-frequency seafloor maps are required to advance our understanding of penetration depth and influence of sounder choice on seafloor substrate classification. Understanding the limits imposed by chosen frequencies and sonar systems will increase these associations, while improving integration methods for paired frequency systems.
The main outcome of this study is that the extensive hardgrounds of the Calypso HVF are not directly linked with gas flares within this shallow hydrothermal system, while unconsolidated sediment nearby hosts higher flux expulsion. This aligns with the development and cessation of other submarine fluid expulsion system (
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusion of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
All authors give final approval of the article to be published. ES conceived and designed the project; processed and analyzed data; generated segmentation and random forest analysis output; substantially drafted, constructed, and revised the article and figures. GL was voyage leader of QUOI-TAN1806 voyage that produced the data and was science leader of public funded program that funded the research. GL and VL funded the voyage from project âBuilding capability for in situ quantitative characterization of the ocean water-column using acoustic multibeam backscatter dataâ (2017â2018) - Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund. JW, VL, and GL supervised the project; provided analytical support and guidance; critically reviewed and revised the article. SW acquired and processed data; provided technical and analytical support; revised the article. YL acquired and processed data; provided technical support; revised the article. EH acquired and processed data; provided technical support; revised the article. AP acquired and processed data; provided technical support; revised the article.
Funding
ES is funded under the Australian Research Councilâs Special Research Initiative for Antarctic Gateway Partnership (Project ID SR140300001). GL and VL were funded by The Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund project: âBuilding capability for in situ quantitative characterization of the ocean water-column using acoustic multibeam backscatter data (2017â2018)â. This research contributes to the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) funded Smart Ideas Grant: âBroadband acoustic characterization of free gases in the ocean water (Contract C01X1915)â and is further supported by the MBIE Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF) Marine Geological Processes Program of the NIWA Coasts and Oceans Centre (COPR).
Acknowledgments
We thank the captain, crew, and science team of the RV Tangaroa QUOI/TAN1806 voyage. We also thank Yves Le Gonidec, Arnaud Gaillot (IFREMER); Tom Weber, Liz Weidner (UNH); Amy Nau (UTAS); Lisa Northcote (NIWA).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisherâs note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AltmanD. G. (1991). Weighted Kappa. Practical Statistics for Medical Research.
2
AugustinJ.-M. (2016). SonarScope ® Software On-Line Presentation. Available at: http://flotte.ifremer.fr/fleet/Presentation- of-the-fleet/On-board-software/SonarScope.
3
BayonG.HendersonG. M.BohnM. (2009). U-th Stratigraphy of a Cold Seep Carbonate Crust. Chem. Geology.260, 47â56. 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2008.11.020
4
BlottS. J.PyeK. (2001). GRADISTAT: a Grain Size Distribution and Statistics Package for the Analysis of Unconsolidated Sediments. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms26, 1237â1248. 10.1002/esp.261
5
BostockH.JenkinsC.MackayK.CarterL.NodderS.OrpinA.et al (2018). Distribution of Surficial Sediments in the Ocean Around New Zealand/Aotearoa. Part B: continental Shelf. New Zealand J. Geology. Geophys.62, 24â45. 10.1080/00288306.2018.1523199
6
BotzR.WehnerH.SchmittM.WorthingtonT. J.SchmidtM.StoffersP. (2002). Thermogenic Hydrocarbons from the Offshore Calypso Hydrothermal Field, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. Chem. Geology.186, 235â248. 10.1016/s0009-2541(01)00418-1
7
BowdenD. A.RowdenA. A.ThurberA. R.BacoA. R.LevinL. A.SmithC. R. (2013). Cold Seep Epifaunal Communities on the Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand: Composition, Succession, and Vulnerability to Human Activities. PLoS One8, e76869. 10.1371/journal.pone.0076869
8
BriemanL. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learn.45, 5â32. 10.1023/A:1010933404324
9
BrownC. J.BeaudoinJ.BrisetteM.GazzolaV. (2019). Multispectral Multibeam echo Sounder Backsactter as a Tool for Improved Seafloor Characterization. Geosciences9, 1â19. 10.3390/geosciences9030126
10
BuscombeD.GramsP. (2018). Probabilistic Substrate Classification with Multispectral Acoustic Backscatter: A Comparison of Discriminative and Generative Models. Geosciences8, 1â21. 10.3390/geosciences8110395
11
BuscombeD. (2017). Shallow Water Benthic Imaging and Substrate Characterization Using Recreational-Grade Sidescan-Sonar. Environ. Model. Softw.89, 1â18. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.12.003
12
CanetC. (2003). Methane-related Carbonates Formed at Submarine Hydrothermal Springs: a New Setting for Microbially-Derived Carbonates?Mar. Geology.199, 245â261. 10.1016/s0025-3227(03)00193-2
13
ContiA.DâemidioM.MacelloniL.LutkenC. B.AsperV.WoolseyM.et al (2016). âMorpho-acoustic Characterization of Natural Seepage Features Near the Macondo Wellhead (ECOGIG Site OC26, Gulf of Mexico). inâ Deep Sea Research II. 10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.11.011
14
DesbruyÚresD. (1998). Temporal Variations in the Vent Communities on the East Pacific Rise and Galápagos Spreading Centre: a Review of Present Knowledge. Cah. Biol. Mar.39.
15
DragutL.TiedeD.LevickS. R. (2010). ESP: a Tool to Estimate Scale Parameter for Multiresolution Image Segmentation of Remotely Sensed Data. Int. J. Geographical Inf. Sci.24, 859â871. 10.1080/13658810903174803
16
DuncanA. R.PantinH. M. (1969). Evidence for Submarine Geothermal Activity in the Bay of Plenty. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshw. Res.3, 602â606. 10.1080/00288330.1969.9515322
17
FeldensP.SchulzeI.PapenmeierS.SchönkeM.Schneider Von DeimlingJ. (2018). Improved Interpretation of marine Sedimentary Environments Using Multi-Frequency Multibeam Backscatter Data. Geosciences8, 1â14. 10.3390/geosciences8060214
18
FinklC. W.MakowskiC. (2016). Seafloor Mapping along continental Shelves: Research and Techniques for Visualizing Benthic Environments. Switzerland: Springer.
19
FolkR. L.WardW. C. (1957). Brazos River Bar [Texas]; a Study in the Significance of Grain Size Parameters. J. Sediment. Res.27, 3â26. 10.1306/74d70646-2b21-11d7-8648000102c1865d
20
FonsecaL.MayerL.OrangeD.DriscollN. (2002). The High-Frequency Backscattering Angular Response of Gassy Sediments: Model/data Comparison from the Eel River Margin, California. The J. Acoust. Soc. America111, 2621â2631. 10.1121/1.1471911
21
GaidaT.Tengku AliT.SnellenM.Amiri-SimkooeiA.Van DijkT.SimonsD. (2018). A Multispectral Bayesian Classification Method for Increased Acoustic Discrimination of Seabed Sediments Using Multi-Frequency Multibeam Backscatter Data. Geosciences8, 1â25. 10.3390/geosciences8120455
22
GentzT.DammE.Schneider Von DeimlingJ.MauS.McginnisD. F.schlÃŒterM. (2014). A Water Column Study of Methane Around Gas Flares Located at the West Spitsbergen continental Margin. Continental Shelf Res.72, 107â118. 10.1016/j.csr.2013.07.013
23
GlasbyG. P. (1971). Direct Observations of Columnar Scattering Associated with Geothermal Gas Bubbling in the Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshw. Res.5, 483â496. 10.1080/00288330.1971.9515399
24
GuillonL.LurtonX. (2001). Backscattering from Buried Sediment Layers: The Equivalent Input Backscattering Strength Model. J. Acoust. Soc. America109, 122â132. 10.1121/1.1329622
25
HanningtonM.HerzigP.StoffersP.ScholtenJ.BotzR.garbe-SchönbergD.et al (2001). First Observations of High-Temperature Submarine Hydrothermal Vents and Massive Anhydrite Deposits off the north Coast of Iceland. Mar. Geology.177, 199â220. 10.1016/s0025-3227(01)00172-4
26
HaralickR. M.shanmugamK.DinsteinI. H. (1973). Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern.SMC-3, 610â621. 10.1109/tsmc.1973.4309314
27
HillmanJ. I. T.LamarcheG.PallentinA.PecherI. A.GormanA. R.Schneider Von DeimlingJ. (2017). Validation of Automated Supervised Segmentation of Multibeam Backscatter Data from the Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Mar. Geophys. Res.39, 205â227. 10.1007/s11001-016-9297-9
28
HockingM. W. A.HanningtonM. D.PercivalJ. B.StoffersP.Schwarz-SchamperaU.De RondeC. E. J. (2010). Clay Alteration of Volcaniclastic Material in a Submarine Geothermal System, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. J. Volcanology Geothermal Res.191, 180â192. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2010.01.018
29
HuffL. C. (2008). Acoustic Remote Sensing as a Tool for Habitat Mapping in Alaska Waters. Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska.
30
Hughes ClarkeJ. E. H. (2015). âMultispectral Acoustic Backscatter from Multibeam, Improved Classification Potential,â in Proceedings of the United States Hydrographic Conference 2015 (San Diego, CA, USA.
31
JacksonD. R.winebrennerD. P.ishimaruA. (1986). Application of the Composite Roughness Model to Highâfrequency Bottom Backscattering. J. Acoust. Soc. America79, 1410â1422. 10.1121/1.393669
32
JanowskiL.TrzcinskaK.TegowskiJ.KrussA.Rucinska-ZjadaczM.PocwiardowskiP. (2018). Nearshore Benthic Habitat Mapping Based on Multi-Frequency, Multibeam Echosounder Data Using a Combined Object-Based Approach: a Case Study from the Rowy Site in the Southern Baltic Sea. Remote Sensing10, 1â21. 10.3390/rs10121983
33
JenksG. F. (1967). The Data Model Concept in Statistical Mapping. lnternational Yearb. Cartography7, 186â190.
34
JonesG. A.KaiterisP. (1983). A Vacuum-Gasometric Technique for Rapid and Precise Analysis of Calcium Carbonate in Sediments and Soils. J. Sediment. Res.53, 655â660. 10.1306/212f825b-2b24-11d7-8648000102c1865d
35
JuddA. G.HovlandM. (2009). Seabed Fluid Flow: The Impact on Geology, Biology and the marine Environment. Northumberland, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36
KamenevG. M.FadeevV. I.SelinN. I.TarasovV. G.MalakhovV. V. (1993). Composition and Distribution of Macroâ and Meiobenthos Around Sublittoral Hydrothermal Vents in the Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshw. Res.27, 407â418. 10.1080/00288330.1993.9516582
37
KohnB. P.GlasbyG. P. (1978). Tephra Distribution and Sedimentation Rates M the Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. New Zealand J. Geology. Geophys.21, 49â70. 10.1080/00288306.1978.10420721
38
LadroitY.LamarcheG.PallentinA. (2017). Seafloor Multibeam Backscatter Calibration experiment: Comparing 45°-tilted 38-kHz Split-Beam Echosounder and 30-kHz Multibeam Data. Mar. Geophys. Res.39, 41â53. 10.1007/s11001-017-9340-5
39
LamarcheG.BarnesP. M. (2005). Fault Characterisation and Earthquake Source Identification in the Offshore Bay of PlentyNIWA Client Report. NIWA, Wellington: Prepared for Environment Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
40
LamarcheG.Le GonidecY.LucieerV.LadroitY.WeberT.GaillotA.et al (2019). Gas Bubble Forensics Team Surveils the New Zealand Ocean. EOS100, 1â10. 10.1029/2019eo133649
41
LamarcheG.LurtonX.VerdierA.-L.AugustinJ.-M. (2011). Quantitative Characterisation of Seafloor Substrate and Bedforms Using Advanced Processing of Multibeam Backscatter-Application to Cook Strait, New Zealand. Continental Shelf Res.31, S93âS109. 10.1016/j.csr.2010.06.001
42
LevinL. A.BacoA. R.BowdenD. A.ColacoA.CordesE. E.CunhaM. R.et al (2016). Hydrothermal Vents and Methane Seeps: Rethinking the Sphere of Influence. Front. Mar. Sci.3, 1â23. 10.3389/fmars.2016.00072
43
LevinL. (2005). Ecology of Cold Seep Sediments. Oceanography Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev.43, 1â46. 10.1201/9781420037449.ch1
44
LiawA.WeinerM. (2002). Classification and Regression by randomForest. R. News2/3, 18â22.
45
LiebetrauV.EisenhauerA.LinkeP. (2010). Cold Seep Carbonates and Associated Cold-Water Corals at the Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand: New Insights into Fluid Pathways, Growth Structures and Geochronology. Mar. Geology.272, 307â318. 10.1016/j.margeo.2010.01.003
46
LitchfieldN.Van DissenR.SutherlandR.BarnesP.CoxS.NorrisR.et al (2013). A Model of Active Faulting in New Zealand. New Zealand J. Geology. Geophys.57, 32â56. 10.1080/00288306.2013.854256
47
LowellR. P.YaoY. (2002). Anhydrite Precipitation and the Extent of Hydrothermal Recharge Zones at Ocean ridge Crests. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth107. 10.1029/2001jb001289
48
LowellR. P.YaoY.GermanovichL. N. (2003). Anhydrite Precipitation and the Relationship between Focused and Diffuse Flow in Seafloor Hydrothermal Systems. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth108, 1â8. 10.1029/2002jb002371
49
LucieerV.LamarcheG. (2011). Unsupervised Fuzzy Classification and Object-Based Image Analysis of Multibeam Data to Map Deep Water Substrates, Cook Strait, New Zealand. Continental Shelf Res.31, 1236â1247. 10.1016/j.csr.2011.04.016
50
LucieerV. L.HillN. A.BarrettN. S.NicholS. (2012). Do marine Substrates âlookâ and âsoundâ the Same? Supervised Classification of Multibeam Acoustic Data Using Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Images. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci., 1â13. 10.1016/j.ecss.2012.11.001
51
LucieerV. L. (2008). Objectâoriented Classification of Sidescan Sonar Data for Mapping Benthic marine Habitats. Int. J. Remote Sensing29, 905â921. 10.1080/01431160701311309
52
LurtonX.LamarcheG. (2015). Backscatter Measurements by Seafloor-Mapping Sonars: Guidelines and Recommendations. Plouzane, France: GEOHAB.
53
McGinnisD. F.GreinertJ.ArtemovY.BeaubienS. E.WÃŒestA. (2006). Fate of Rising Methane Bubbles in Stratified Waters: How Much Methane Reaches the Atmosphere?J. Geophys. Res.111, 1â15. 10.1029/2005jc003183
54
MedwinH.ClayC. S. (1997). Fundamentals of Acoustical Oceanography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
55
MellorA.BoukirS.HaywoodA.JonesS. (2015). Exploring Issues of Training Data Imbalance and Mislabelling on Random forest Performance for Large Area Land Cover Classification Using the Ensemble Margin. ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sensing105, 155â168. 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.03.014
56
MitchellG. A.OrangeD. L.GharibJ. J.KennedyP. (2018). Improved Detection and Mapping of deepwater Hydrocarbon Seeps: Optimizing Multibeam Echosounder Seafloor Backscatter Acquisition and Processing Techniques. Mar. Geophys. Res., 323â34710.1007/s11001-018-9345-8
57
MitchellJ.StevensM.WilcoxS. (2004). RV Tangaroa TAN0412 Voyage Report: Bay of Plenty Swath and Hawke Bay Seismics. Unpublished Voyage Report. Wellington: NIWA.
58
MitchellN. C. (1993). A Model for Attenuation of Backscatter Due to Sediment Accumulation and its Application to Determine Sediment Thicknesses with GLORIA Sidescan Sonar. J. Geophys. Res.98, 477â493. 10.1029/93jb02217
59
MoneckeT.PetersenS.HanningtonM. D. (2014). Constraints on Water Depth of Massive Sulphide Formation: Evidence from Modern Seafloor Hydrothermal Systems in Arc-Related Settings. Econ. Geology.109, 2079â2101. 10.2113/econgeo.109.8.2079
60
MottlM. J. (1983). Metabasalts, Axial hot springs, and the Structure of Hydrothermal Systems at Mid-ocean Ridges. Geol. Soc. America Bull.94, 164â180. 10.1130/0016-7606(1983)94<161:mahsat>2.0.co;2
61
NaudtsL.GreinertJ.ArtemovY.BeaubienS. E.BorowskiC.batistM. D. (2008). Anomalous Sea-Floor Backscatter Patterns in Methane Venting Areas, Dnepr paleo-delta, NW Black Sea. Mar. Geology.251, 253â267. 10.1016/j.margeo.2008.03.002
62
NaudtsL.GreinertJ.PoortJ.BelzaJ.VangampelaereE.BooneD.et al (2010). Active Venting Sites on the Gas-Hydrate-Bearing Hikurangi Margin, off New Zealand: Diffusive- versus Bubble-Released Methane. Mar. Geology.272, 233â250. 10.1016/j.margeo.2009.08.002
63
NoéS.TitschackJ.FreiwaldA.DulloW.-C. (2006). From Sediment to Rock: Diagenetic Processes of Hardground Formation in Deep-Water Carbonate mounds of the NE Atlantic. Facies52, 183â208. 10.1007/s10347-005-0037-x
64
PantinH. M.WrightI. C. (1994). Submarine Hydrothermal Activity within the Offshore Taupo Volcanic Zone, Bay of Plenty continental Shelf, New Zealand. Continental Shelf Res.14, 1411â1438. 10.1016/0278-4343(94)90083-3
65
PhrampusB. J.LeeT. R.WoodW. T. (2020). A Global Probabilistic Prediction of Cold Seeps and Associated SEAfloor FLuid ExpulsionAnomalies (SEAFLEAs). Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems21, 1â16. 10.1029/2019gc008747
66
ProcesiM.CiotoliG.MazziniA.EtiopeG. (2019). Sediment-hosted Geothermal Systems: Review and First Global Mapping. Earth-Science Rev.192, 529â544. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.03.020
67
Prol-LedesmaR. M.CanetC.Torres-VeraM. A.ForrestM. J.ArmientaM. A. (2004). Vent Fluid Chemistry in BahÃa Concepción Coastal Submarine Hydrothermal System, Baja California Sur, Mexico. J. Volcanology Geothermal Res.137, 311â328. 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2004.06.003
68
ReeburghW. S. (2007). Oceanic Methane Biogeochemistry. Chem. Rev.107, 486â513. 10.1021/cr050362v
69
RömerM.WenauS.MauS.VelosoM.GreinertJ.SchlÃŒterM.et al (2017). Assessing marine Gas Emission Activity and Contribution to the Atmospheric Methane Inventory: A Multidisciplinary Approach from the Dutch Dogger Bank Seep Area (North Sea). Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems18, 2617â2633. 10.1002/2017GC006995
70
SahlingH.römerM.PapeT.bergÚsB.Dos Santos FereirraC.BoelmannJ.et al (2014). Gas Emissions at the continental Margin West of Svalbard: Mapping, Sampling, and Quantification. Biogeosciences11, 6029â6046. 10.5194/bg-11-6029-2014
71
SaranoF.MurphyR. C.HoughtonB. F.HedenquistJ. W. (1989). Preliminary Observations of Submarine Geothermal Activity in the Vicinity of White Island Volcano, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. J. R. Soc. New Zealand19, 449â459. 10.1080/03036758.1989.10421847
72
Schneider Von DeimlingJ.WeinrebeW.tóthZ.FossingH.EndlerR.RehderG.et al (2013). A Low Frequency Multibeam Assessment: Spatial Mapping of Shallow Gas by Enhanced Penetration and Angular Response Anomaly. Mar. Pet. Geology.44, 217â222. 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013.02.013
73
Schwarz-SchamperaU.BotzR.HanningtonM.AdamsonR.AngerV.CormanyD.et al (2007). Cruise Report SONNE 192/2 - MANGO - Marine Geoscientific Research on Input and Output in the Tonga-Kermadec Subduction Zone. Kiel, Germany
74
ShakhovaN.SemiletovI.LeiferI.SergienkoV.SalyukA.KosmachD.et al (2014). Ebullition and Storm-Induced Methane Release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Nat. Geosci7, 64â70. 10.1038/ngeo2007
75
StoffersP.HanningtonM.WrightI.HerzigP.De RondeC.Scientific PartyS. (1999). Elemental Mercury at Submarine Hydrothermal Vents in the Bay of Plenty, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. Geol27, 931â934. 10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0931:emashv>2.3.co;2
76
ThorsnesT.ChandS.BrunstadH.LeplandA.LÃ¥gstadP. (2019). Strategy for Detection and High-Resolution Characterization of Authigenic Carbonate Cold Seep Habitats Using Ships and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles on Glacially Influenced Terrain. Front. Mar. Sci.6. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00708
77
UrickR. J. (1956). The Processes of Sound Scattering at the Ocean Surface and Bottom. J. Mar. Res.15, 134â148.
78
WalbridgeS.SlocumN.PobudaM.WrightD. J. (2018). Unified Geomorphological Analysis Workflows with Benthic Terrain Modeler. Geosciences8, 1â24. 10.3390/geosciences8030094
79
WatsonS. J.MountjoyJ. J.BarnesP. M.CrutchleyG. J.LamarcheG.HiggsB.et al (2020). Focused Fluid Seepage Related to Variations in Accretionary Wedge Structure, Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Geology48, 56â61. 10.1130/g46666.1
80
WrightD. J.PendletonM.BoulwareJ.WalbridgeS.GerltB.EslingerD.et al (2012). ArcGIS Benthic Terrain Modeler (BTM), V. 3.0. Boston, MA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, NOAA Coastal Services Center, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management.
81
WrightI. C. (1992). Shallow Structure and Active Tectonism of an Offshore continental Back-Arc Spreading System: the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. Mar. Geology.103, 287â309. 10.1016/0025-3227(92)90021-9
82
WysoczanskiR.LamarcheG.CareyR.DaveyN.DaveyF.HiggsB.et al (2015). SAMSARA â TAN1513. R/V Tangaroa Research Voyage Report. Wellington: NIWA Voyage Report NIWA.
Summary
Keywords
hydrothermal vent areas, New Zealand, seeps, random forest, seafloor, calypso vents, acoustic seafloor backscatter
Citation
Spain E, Lamarche G, Lucieer V, Watson SJ, Ladroit Y, Heffron E, Pallentin A and Whittaker JM (2022) Acoustic Predictors of Active Fluid Expulsion From a Hydrothermal Vent Field, Offshore TaupÅ Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. Front. Earth Sci. 9:785396. doi: 10.3389/feart.2021.785396
Received
29 September 2021
Accepted
22 December 2021
Published
24 January 2022
Volume
9 - 2021
Edited by
Alessandra Savini, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
Reviewed by
Adam Skarke, Mississippi State University, United States
Craig John Brown, Dalhousie University, Canada
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2022 Spain, Lamarche, Lucieer, Watson, Ladroit, Heffron, Pallentin and Whittaker.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Erica Spain, erica.spain@niwa.co.nz
This article was submitted to Marine Geoscience, a section of the journal Frontiers in Earth Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.