Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp 415–425 | Cite as

A comparison of temperate reef fish assemblages recorded by three underwater stereo-video techniques

  • Dianne L. Watson
  • Euan S. Harvey
  • Marti J. Anderson
  • Gary A. Kendrick
Research Article

Abstract

Three underwater stereo-video techniques were used to sample the relative densities and species richness of temperate reef fish assemblages at three reef locations and two habitats (high- and low-relief reef) within Hamelin Bay, south-western Australia. The three techniques compared were diver-operated stereo-video strip transects, baited remote stereo-video and unbaited remote stereo-video. While unbaited remote stereo-video and diver-operated stereo-video transects recorded greater species richness at high compared to low-relief reefs, baited remote stereo-video recorded similar species richness at the two habitat types. The diver-operated stereo-video system was manoeuvred through caves and under overhangs recording small, cryptic, cave-dwelling species that were not recorded by either remote video techniques (Trachinops noarlungae, Trachinops brauni, Chromis klunzingeri, Trachichthys australis). Both remote video techniques recorded greater species richness and relative density of the most common species of Labridae, Ophthalmolepsis lineolatus. Baited remote video recorded the rarer, large predatory fish species (e.g. Seriola hippos, Glaucosoma hebraicum, Heterodontus portusjacksoni). None of the techniques sampled small cryptic fish families such as Gobiidae or Blenniidae. A combination of survey techniques is recommended for comprehensive fishery-independent studies that aim to sample broad components of fish assemblages.

Keywords

Species Richness Fish Assemblage Assemblage Structure Scuba Diver Great Species Richness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted with financial assistance from The University of Western Australia and the Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management (Coastal CRC). We thank Dave Gull, Simon Grove and Ben Toohey for their assistance in the field, the marine group and Coastal CRC colleagues for comments on the draft of the manuscript and Dave Gull for analysis of video images. We also greatly appreciate The Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) for their permission to use the facilities at Hamelin Bay.

References

  1. Ackerman JL, Bellwood DR (2000) Reef fish assemblages: a re-evaluation using enclosed rotenone stations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 206:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Aust Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  3. Andrew NL, Mapstone BD (1987) Sampling and the description of spatial pattern in marine ecology. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 25:39–90Google Scholar
  4. Bailey DM, Priede IG (2002) Predicting fish behaviour in response to abyssal food falls. Mar Biol 141:831–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell JS, Craik GJS, Pollard DA, Russell BC (1985) Estimating length frequency distributions of large reef fish underwater. Coral Reefs 4:41–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brock RE (1982) A critique of the visual census method for assessing coral reef fish populations. Bull Mar Sci 32:269–276Google Scholar
  7. Cappo M, Speare P, De’ath G (2004) Comparison of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) and prawn trawls for assessments of fish biodiversity in inter-reefal areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 302:123–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman CJ, Johnston ADF, Dunn JR, Creasey DJ (1974) Reactions of fish to sound generated by diver’s open-circuit underwater breathing apparatus. Mar Biol 27:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke KR, Warwick RN (2001) Changes in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edn. PRIMER-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  10. Cole RG (1994) Abundance, size structure, and diver-oriented behaviour of three large benthic carnivorous fishes in a marine reserve in northeastern New Zealand. Biol Conserv 70:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connell SD, Jones GP (1991) The influence of habitat complexity on postrecruitment processes in a temperate reef fish population. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 151:271–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis GE, Anderson TW (1989) Population estimates of four kelp forest fishes and an evaluation of three in situ assessment techniques. Bull Mar Sci 44:1138–1151Google Scholar
  13. Edgar GJ, Barrett NS, Morton AJ (2004) Biases associated with the use of underwater visual census techniques to quantify the density and size-structure of fish populations. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 308:269–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. English S, Wilkinson C, Baker V (1994) Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources. Australian Institute of Marine Science, p 368Google Scholar
  15. Francour P, Liret C, Harvey E (1999) Comparison of fish abundance estimates made by remote underwater video and visual census. Naturalista sicil XXIII(Suppl):155–168Google Scholar
  16. Froese R, Pauly D (2003) Fishbase. http://www.fishbase.org/search.cfm updated 6th April 2004
  17. Green LE, Alevizon WS (1989) Comparative accuracies of visual assessment methods for coral reef fishes. Bull Mar Sci 44:899–912Google Scholar
  18. Harman N, Harvey E, Kendrick G (2003) Differences in fish assemblages from different reef habitats at Hamelin Bay, south-western Australia. Mar Freshw Res 54:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey ES, Shortis MR (1996) A system for stereo-video measurement of subtidal organisms. Mar Tech Soc J 29:10–22Google Scholar
  20. Harvey E, Fletcher D, Shortis M (2001a) A comparison of the precision and accuracy of estimates of reef-fish lengths determined visually by divers with estimates produced by a stereo-video system. Fish Bull 99:63–71Google Scholar
  21. Harvey E, Fletcher D, Shortis M (2001b) Improving the statistical power of length estimates of reef fish: a comparison of estimates determined visually by divers with estimates produced by a stereo-video system. Fish Bull 99:72–80Google Scholar
  22. Harvey ES, Shortis MR, Stadler M, Cappo M (2002) A comparison of the accuracy and precision of measurements from single and stereo-video systems. Mar Tech Soc J 36(2):38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harvey E, Fletcher D, Shortis MR, Kendrick GA (2004) A comparison of underwater visual distance estimates made by SCUBA divers and a stereo-video system: implications for underwater visual census of reef fish abundance. Mar Freshw Res 55:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kendrick G, Harvey E, Wernberg T, Harman N, Goldberg N (2004) The role of disturbance in maintaining diversity of benthic macroalgal assemblages in southwestern Australia. Jpn J Phyc 52(Suppl):5–9Google Scholar
  25. Kingsford M, Battershill C (1998) Studying temperate marine environments: a handbook for ecologists. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, p 335Google Scholar
  26. Kulbicki M (1998) How the acquired behaviour of commercial reef fishes may influence the results obtained from visual censuses. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 222:11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lincoln-Smith MP (1988) Effects of observer swimming speed on sample counts of temperate rocky reef fish assemblages. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 43:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lincoln-Smith MP (1989) Improving multispecies rocky reef fish censuses by counting different groups of species using different procedures. Environ Biol Fish 26:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lipej L, Bonaco MO, Sisko M (2003) Coastal fish diversity in three marine protected areas and one unprotected area in the Gulf of Trieste (Northern Adriatic). Mar Ecol 24:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macpherson E (1994) Sustrate utilisation in a Mediterranean littoral fish community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 114:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCormick MI, Choat JH (1987) Estimating total abundance of a large temperate-reef fish using visual strip-transects. Mar Biol 96:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Priede IG, Merrett NR (1996) Estimation of abundance of abyssal demersal fishes; a comparison of data from trawls and baited cameras. J Fish Biol 49(Suppl):207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Priede IG, Merrett NR (1998) The relationship between numbers of fish attracted to baited cameras and population density; studies on demersal grenadiers Coryphaenoides (Nematonurus) armatus in the abyssal NE Atlantic Ocean. Fish Res 36:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Priede IG, Bagley PM, Smith A, Creasey S, Merrett NR (1994) Scavenging deep demersal fishes of the Porcupine Seabight, North-east Atlantic: observations by baited camera, trap and trawl. J Mar Biol Ass UK 74:481–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sainte-Marie B, Hargrave BT (1987) Estimation of scavenger abundance and distance of attraction to bait. Mar Biol 94:431–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sale PF, Sharp BJ (1983) Correction for bias in visual transect censuses of coral reef fishes. Coral Reefs 2:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tessier E, Chabanet P, Othin K, Soria M, Lasserre G (2005) Visual census of tropical fish aggregations on artificial reefs: slate versus video recording techniques. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 315:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson AA, Mapstone BD (1997) Observer effects and training in underwater visual surveys of reef fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 154:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watson RA, Quinn TJ II (1997) Performance of transect and point count underwater visual census methods. Ecol Model 104:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watson RA, Carlos GM, Samoilys MA (1995) Bias introduced by the non-random movement of fish in visual transect surveys. Ecol Model 77:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Willis TJ (2001) Visual census methods underestimate density and diversity of cryptic reef fishes. J Fish Biol 59:1408–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Willis TJ, Anderson MJ (2003) Structure of cryptic reef fish assemblages: relationships with habitat characteristics and predator density. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 257:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Willis TJ, Babcock RC (2000) A baited underwater video system for the detection of relative density of carnivorous reef fish. Mar Freshw Res 51:755–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Willis TJ, Millar RB (2005) Using marine reserves to estimate fishing mortality. Ecol Lett 8(1):47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Willis TJ, Millar RB, Babcock RC (2000) Detection of spatial variability in relative density of fishes: comparison of visual census, angling, and baited underwater video. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 198:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dianne L. Watson
    • 1
  • Euan S. Harvey
    • 1
  • Marti J. Anderson
    • 2
  • Gary A. Kendrick
    • 1
  1. 1.CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, School of Plant BiologyThe University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations