Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 81–94 | Cite as

Finding rockpool fishes: a quantitative comparison of non-invasive and invasive methods for assessing abundance, species richness and assemblage structure

  • Marian Y. L. WongEmail author
  • Paul Gordon
  • Kai C. Paijmans
  • Matthew J. Rees
Article

Abstract

Rocky intertidal shores are diverse ecosystems that have been extensively studied, yet there is a surprising lack of knowledge on the methods best suited to quantifying species abundance, diversity and assemblages. We compared visual census, unbaited remote underwater video (mini-RUV), baited remote underwater video (mini-BRUV) and draining/collection methods, with the goal of quantifying the effectiveness of non-invasive methods over more typical invasive methods for quantifying rockpool fish assemblages. In addition, we assessed the optimal set time of video deployment for mini-RUV and mini-BRUV. Fieldwork was undertaken from May–June 2016 using 20 rockpools at seven locations on the SE coast of NSW, Australia. Following standardisation of methods, visual census detected the lowest abundance of fishes whereas hand collection detected the highest out of any method. Increasing sampling time of mini-RUV and mini-BRUV from 10 to 25 min improved their effectiveness, with mini-BRUV detecting comparable abundances to invasive hand collection. The methods did not differ with respect to species richness however. Further, 25 min of mini-BRUV yielded greater detection of common species than hand collection. All together, these results suggest that mini-BRUV is the best method if the goal is to provide accurate estimates of overall abundance, richness and assemblages with minimal disturbance to rockpools, with a preferred set time of 25 min (and at least 15 min). The ability to conduct rapid and non-invasive species surveys of natural rockpool fish communities is an important conservation and management tool given that these habitats can be home to a variety of commercially important and rare species.

Keywords

Rockpool Intertidal Fish Assemblage Abundance Bathygobius Mini-BRUV 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Pearl Ible, Daniel Colella, Daniel Swadling, Sarah Brady, Bridget Potts, Tom Horsley and Keira Leahey for assistance with fieldwork. We thank Andy Davis and David Ayre for comments on early manuscripts. This work was funded by the Centre for Sustainable Ecosystems Solutions in the School of Biological Sciences based at the University of Wollongong, NSW.

Compliance with ethical standards

All protocols complied with animal ethics regulations and approvals from the University of Wollongong, ethics approval number 14/05.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10641_2019_846_MOESM1_ESM.docx (59 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 59 kb)

References

  1. Almada VC, Faria C (2004) Temporal variation of rocky intertidal resident fish assemblages - patterns and possible mechanisms with a note on sampling protocols. Rev Fish Biol Fish 14:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2001). A new method for non‐parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26: 32-46Google Scholar
  3. Baker DGL, Eddy TD, McIver R, Schmidt AL, Theriault M-H, Boudreau M, Courtenay SC, Lotze HK (2016) Comparative analysis of different survey methods for monitoring fish assemblages in coastal habitats. PeerJ 4:e1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezerra LAV, Padial AA, Mariano FB, Garcez DS, Sanchez-Botero JI (2017) Fish diversity in tidepools: assembling effects of environmental heterogeneity. Environ Biol Fish 100:551–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowden DA (2001) Effect of patch size and in-patch location on the infaunal macroinvertebrate assemblages of Zostera marina seagrass beds. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 259:133–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappo M, Speare P, De'ath G (2004). Comparison of Baited Remote Underwater Video Stations (BRUVS) and Prawn (shrimp) Trawls for Assessments of Fish Biodiversity in Inter-Reefal Areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Comparison of baited Remote Underwater Video Stations (BRUVS) and Prawn (shrimp) Trawls for Assessments of Fish Biodiversity in Inter-Reefal Areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 302(2), 123–152Google Scholar
  7. Cappo M, Speare P, Wassenberg TJ, Harvey E, Rees M, Heyward A, Pitcher R (2001) Use of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUV) to survey demersal fish— how deep and meaningful? In: Harvey ES, Cappo M (eds) Direct sensing of the size frequency and abundance of target and non-target fauna in Australian Fisheries, 4–7 September 2000. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Rottnest Island, Western Australia, pp 63–71Google Scholar
  8. Castellanos-Galindo GA, Giraldo A, Rubio EA (2005) Community structure of an assemblage of tidepool fishes on a tropical eastern Pacific rocky shore, Colombia. J Fish Biol 67:392–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Changes in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Primer-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke KR, Somerfield PJ, Chapman MG (2006) On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted bray–Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 330:55–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colton MA, Swearer SE (2010) A comparison of two survey methods: differences between underwater visual census and baited remote underwater video. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 400:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox TE, Baumgartner E, Philippoff J, Boyle KS (2011) Spatial and vertical patterns in the tidepool fish assemblage on the island of O'ahu. Environ Biol Fish 90:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curley BG, Jordan AR, Figueira WF, Valenzuela VC (2013) A review of the biology and ecology of key fishes targeted by coastal fisheries in south-East Australia: identifying critical knowledge gaps required to improve spatial management. Rev Fish Biol Fish 23:435–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis T, Larkin MF, Harasti D (2018) Application of non-destructive methods for assessing rockpool fish assemblages on Lord Howe Island, Australia. Reg Stud Mar Sci 24:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dorman SR, Harvey ES, Newman SJ (2012) Bait effects in sampling coral reef fish assemblages with stereo-BRUV. PLoS One 7:e41538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faria C, Almada V (1999) Variation and resilience of rocky intertidal fish in western Portugal. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 184:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson RN, Yoshiyama RM (1999) Intertidal fish communities. In: Horn MH, Martin KLM, Chotkowski MA (eds) Intertidal fishes. Life in two worlds, San Diego, pp 264–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gladstone W, Lindfield S, Coleman M, Kelaher B (2012) Optimisation of baited remote underwater video sampling designs for estuarine fish assemblages. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 429:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Godinho WO, Lotufo TMC (2010) Local v. microhabitat influences on the fish fauna of tidal pools in north-East Brazil. J Fish Biol 76:487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths SP (2000) The use of clove oil as an anaesthetic and method for sampling intertidal rockpool fishes. J Fish Biol 57:1453–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffiths SP (2003) Rockpool ichthyofaunas of temperate Australia: species composition, residency and biogeographic patterns. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 58:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harasti D, Gallen C, Malcolm H, Tegart P, Hughes B (2014) Where are the little ones: distribution and abundance of the threatened serranid Epinephelus daemelii (Günther, 1876) in intertidal habitats in New South Wales, Australia. J Appl Ichthyol 30:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harasti D, Malcolm H, Gallen C, Coleman MA, Jordan A, Knott NA (2015) Appropriate set times to represent patterns of rocky reef fishes using baited video. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 463:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harasti D, McLuckie C, Gallen C, Malcolm H, Moltschaniwskyj N (2018a) Assessment of rockpool fish assemblages along a latitudinal gradient. Mar Biodivers 48(2):1147–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harasti D, Williams J, Mitchell E, Linfield D, Jordan A (2018b) Increase in relative abundance and size of snapper Chrysophrys auratus following the implementation of a temperate marine protected area. Front Mar Sci 5.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00208
  27. Harvey ES, Cappo M, Butler JJ, Hall N, Kendrick GA (2007) Bait attraction affects the performance of remote underwater video stations in assessment of demersal fish community structure. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 350:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelaher BP, Coleman MA, Broad A, Rees MJ, Jordan A, Davis AR (2014) Changes in fish assemblages following the establishment of a network of no-take marine reserves and partially-protected areas. PLoS One 9:e85825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Lowry M, Folpp H, Gregson M, Mckenzie R (2011) A comparison of methods for estimating fish assemblages associated with estuarine artificial reefs. Braz J Oceanogr 59:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowry M, Folpp H, Gregson M, Suthers I (2012) Comparison of baited remote underwater video (BRUV) and underwater visual census (UVC) for assessment of artificial reefs in estuaries. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 416-417:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Misa WFXE, Richards BL, DiNardo GT, Kelley CD, Moriwake VN, Drazen JC (2016) Evaluating the effect of soak time on bottomfish abundance and length data from stereo-video surveys. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 479:20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murase A (2013) Community structure and short temporal stability of a rockpool fish assemblage at Yaku-Shima Island, southern Japan, northwestern Pacific. Ichthyol Res 60:312–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paijmans KC, Wong MYL (2017) Linking animal contests and community structure using rockpool fishes as a model system. Funct Ecol 31:1612–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rees MJ, Knott NA, Fenech GV, Davis AR (2015) Rules of attraction: enticing pelagic fish to mid-water remote underwater video systems (RUV). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 529:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silberschneider V, Booth DJ (2001) Resource use by Enneapterygius rufopileus and other rockpool fishes. Environ Biol Fish 61:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stewart BD, Beukers JS (2000) Baited technique improves censuses of cryptic fish in complex habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 197:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stobart B, Garcia-Charton JA, Espejo C, Rochel E, Goni R, Renones O, Herrero A, Crec-hriou R, Polti S, Marcos C, Planes S, Perez-Ruzafa A (2007) A baited underwater video technique to assess shallow-water Mediterranean fish assemblages: methodological evaluation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 345:158–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Underwood AJ (2000) Experimental ecology of rocky intertidal habitats: what are we learning? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250:51–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Unsworth RKF, Peters JR, McCloskey RM, Hinder SL (2014) Optimising stereo baited underwater video for sampling fish and invertebrates in temperate coastal habitats. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci Part B 150:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ward-Paige C, Flemming JM, Lotze HK (2010) Overestimating fish counts by non-instantaneous visual censuses: consequences for population and community descriptions. PLoS One 5:e11722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Watson DL, Harvey ES, Anderson MJ, Kendrick GA (2005) A comparison of temperate reef fish assemblages recorded by three underwater stereo-video techniques. Mar Biol 148:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. White GE, Brown C (2013) Site fidelity and homing behaviour in intertidal fishes. Mar Biol 160:1365–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whitmarsh SK, Fairweather PG, Huveneers C (2017) What is big BRUVver up to? Methods and uses of baited underwater video. Rev Fish Biol Fish 27:53–73CrossRefGoogle 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
  47. Wraith J, Lynch T, Minchinton TE, Broad A, Davis AR (2013) Bait type affects fish assemblages and feeding guilds observed at baited remote underwater video stations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 477:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marian Y. L. Wong
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Gordon
    • 1
  • Kai C. Paijmans
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Rees
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Sustainable Ecosystems Solutions, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life SciencesUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations