the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note: From coccolith counts to quantitative carbonate fluxes: three decades of AI-assisted automated coccolith analysis
Abstract. Automated analysis of calcareous nannofossils has progressively transformed coccolith-based paleoceanography by enabling the quantitative investigation of extremely abundant microfossil assemblages. Over the past three decades, the SYRACO (SYstème de Reconnaissance Automatique de COccolithes) framework evolved from one of the earliest neural-network–based recognition systems for micropaleontology into an integrated platform combining automated acquisition, object detection, morphometry and coccolith-mass estimation. Here, we retrace this methodological evolution from the first artificial neural networks developed in the 1990s to the current YOLOv8-based deep-learning framework.
We describe the successive developments in imaging, segmentation and object detection that improved over time coccolith recovery, quantitative robustness and operational scalability. Particular attention is given to the transition from segmentation-dependent workflows to integrated object detection, which fundamentally changed the balance between false positives and false negatives in quantitative coccolith analysis. To address the specific constraints of paleoceanographic applications, we use class-specific confidence thresholds to control inference reliability.
Beyond taxonomic recognition, the integration of bidirectional circular polarization imaging and automated morphometry progressively transformed SYRACO into a quantitative optical framework capable of estimating coccolith size, thickness and calcite mass on large datasets. As an illustration of the scientific applications enabled by these developments, we present a reanalysis of the EUMELI sediment-trap series from the Mauritanian upwelling system. This reanalysis reveals two short-lived coccolithophore export events during which Emiliania huxleyi and Gephyrocapsa oceanica dominated carbonate production and export, producing several grams of CaCO₃ m⁻² at 2500 m depth within about a month.
Together, these developments illustrate how successive generations of artificial intelligence and automated microscopy transformed coccolith analysis from a labor-intensive counting procedure into a scalable quantitative approach suitable for ecological, biogeochemical and paleoceanographic investigations.
- Preprint
(1713 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Oct 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3901', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Luc Beaufort, 01 Oct 2026
reply
We thank the referee for this very positive and constructive assessment of our manuscript. We are particularly pleased that the historical perspective and the evolution of SYRACO were found useful and engaging.
We fully agree that, if this paper is to serve as a methodological reference for the current SYRACO system, the description of the complete workflow should be sufficiently detailed to allow readers outside our group to understand and reproduce its main components. In the revised manuscript, we will therefore substantially expand the methodological description, in particular regarding slide preparation, image acquisition (including the multifocus/z-stack procedure and hyperfocal reconstruction), the CoccoSnail acquisition system, and the scope and use of the MANTA image-analysis workflow and associated code. We will also add information on the practical throughput of slide scanning and image processing.
We will of course correct the inconsistency concerning the SYRACO version in Fig. 6, as well as the duplicated Beaufort and Dollfus (2004) reference.
Finally, we agree with the referee that the manuscript has developed beyond what may conventionally be considered a “Technical note”. We would therefore be very happy for the manuscript to be considered as a regular research/review article, should the Editor consider this more appropriate.
We thank the referee again for these constructive suggestions, which will help us make the manuscript a more complete and useful methodological reference.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3901-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Luc Beaufort, 01 Oct 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3901', Hongrui Zhang, 30 Sep 2026
reply
This paper gives a very smooth review on the historical developement of SYRACO. The authors take the reader from the early hardware and algorithmic constraints of the 1990s through the progressive maturation of imaging and segmentation, and finally to the transition toward integrated deep-learning detection.
I support the publishment of this work. The only doubt is the type of this paper is Technical note, not review. Is it possible to shift it as a review paper
Typo: Table 1. Line 488: available in the Supplements
Hongrui Zhang
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3901-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Luc Beaufort, 01 Oct 2026
reply
We thank Dr. Zhang for this very positive assessment of our manuscript and for supporting its publication.
We agree that, given its broad historical and methodological scope, the manuscript may fit better as a review or regular article than as a Technical Note. We would therefore be very happy with such a change in manuscript type, should the Editor consider it appropriate.
We will also correct the typo concerning the Supplements in Table 1.
We thank Dr. Zhang again for his encouraging comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3901-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Luc Beaufort, 01 Oct 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 294 | 124 | 36 | 454 | 39 | 40 | 38 |
- HTML: 294
- PDF: 124
- XML: 36
- Total: 454
- Supplement: 39
- BibTeX: 40
- EndNote: 38
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I very much enjoyed reading the historical overview of the technical development of the SYRACO system. As noted in the text, this has been the work of decades, with parallel developments in sample processing, microscopy, image capture and segmentation and classification algorithms. The text is well illustrated with high quality figures that clearly demonstrate the improvements in imaging, but also the more subtle changes in data quality over time – a consistency in taxonomic compositional analysis but with a gradual increase in the accurate identification of total number of coccolith particles (reduction in false negatives). The return to the original test cases of early SYRACO systems clearly illustrates these changes in image and data quality through time.
My one concern is the about the nature of the paper. It is titled a ‘Technical note’ and, through a historical presentation of the evolution of the SYRACO system, does seem to be serving the purpose of documenting the SYRCAO5 system and methodology. I would suspect that it will be used as a, if not the, key reference paper for this methodology in future analyses using SYRACO5. In this context, however, although there is clear methodological content in the description of training datasets, acquisition approaches and validation metrics of SYRACO5, there is not a fully explained methodology of how this data is acquired. Aspects of this may be so familiar to the author team, that they seem obvious, but it for the external community the more clearly these components are documented, the greater the value and legacy of this major contribution to nannofossil research.
I think there are three areas to this:
Overall I would strongly support the publication of this manuscript, both as a concise, clear and engaging introduction to coccolith automated microscopy and analysis and as the methodological reference point for publications using the current SYRACO5 ‘system’ but would strongly encourage the inclusion of some more detailed methods for each component of the workflow, and an explanation of the linked image processing MANTA code. The presentation as a historical narrative makes methodological detail seem out of place, but the paper needs a bit more detail to underpin the results that it does present using the SYRACO5 system.
Minor issues:
It would be useful to have an estimate of throughput numbers in terms of slide scanning and image processing rates.
Fig. 6 caption says the black curves are SYRACOv2 counts; the text says the comparison is v3 vs v5 – which is right? (line 357)
Bibliography: Beaufort & Dollfus 2004a and 2004b are the same paper