Comparison of sampling methods to assess benthic marine biodiversity : Are spatial and ecological relationships consistent among sampling gear?

Flannery, Emma; Przeslawski, Rachel

doi:10.11636/record.2015.007

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, each type of sampling gear presents specific benefits and limitations. Several studies have emphasized the relevance of using different, complementary gears at a same location to obtain a more comprehensive assessment of biodiversity distribution (Bouchet, Lozouet, Maestrati, & Heros, ; Flannery & Przeslawski, ; Ghiglione et al., ). This sampling strategy was adopted in several campaigns such as the CEAMARC campaign led in East Antarctica (Dettai et al., ; Hosie et al., ), campaigns ANT XXIX and ANT XXIII and campaign JR 144 along the Antarctic Peninsula (Gutt, , ; Linse, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can we generate robust species distribution models at the scale of the Southern Ocean?

Fabri‐Ruiz

Danis

David

et al. 2018

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Species distribution modelling (SDM) represents a valuable alternative to predict species distribution over vast and remote areas of the ocean. We tested whether reliable SDMs can be generated for benthic marine organisms at the scale of the Southern Ocean. We aimed at identifying the main large-scale factors that determine the distribution of the selected species. The robustness of SDMs was tested with regards to sampling effort, species niche width and biogeography.Location: Southern Ocean. Methods:The impact of sampling effort was tested using two sets of data: one set with all presence-only data available until 2005, and a second set using all data available until 2015 including recent records from campaigns carried out during the Census of Antarctic Marine Life (CAML) and the International Polar Year (IPY) period (2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010). The accuracy of SDMs was tested using a ground-truthing approach by comparing recent presence/absence data collected during the CAML and IPY period to pre-CAML model predictions. Results:Our results show the significance of the SDM approach and the role of abiotic factors as important drivers of species distribution at broad spatial scale. The addition of recent data to the models significantly improved the prediction of SDM and changed the respective contributions of environmental predictors. However, the intensity of change varied between models depending on sampling tools, species ecological niche width and biogeographic barriers to dispersal. Main conclusions:We highlight the need for new data and the significance of the ground-truthing approach to test the accuracy of SDMs. We show the importance of data collected through international initiatives, such as the CAML and IPY to the improvement of species distribution modelling at broad spatial scales. Finally, we discussed the relevance of SDM as a relevant marine conservation tool particularly in the context of climate change and the definition of Marine Protected Areas. K E Y W O R D SAntarctic, biogeography, conservation, Echinoidea, ecological niche, random forest, sampling effort, sub-Antarctic B I OS K E TCHSalomé Fabri-Ruiz is a PhD student. She is interested in species distribution modelling and spatial ecology applied to large scale area. Her current research focus on quantifying and mapping benthic marine biodiversity in the Southern Ocean using several statistical and mathematical methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can we generate robust species distribution models at the scale of the Southern Ocean?

Fabri‐Ruiz

Danis

David

et al. 2018

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there is a wealth of literature on individual descriptions and qualitative comparisons of performance for these various deep-sea sampling tools (e.g., Jamieson et al, 2013;Flannery and Przeslawski, 2015;Durden et al, 2016), direct empirical comparisons between the tools and their sampling biases are limited. A few studies have compared quantitatively the megaepifaunal data collected by different tools in a single study area (e.g., abundance, diversity, biomass, size).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Performance of a Remotely Operated Vehicle, a Drop Camera, and a Trawl in Capturing Deep-Sea Epifaunal Abundance and Diversity

Mendonça

Meta×as

2021

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deep-sea ecosystems provide services such as food, minerals, and nutrient recycling, yet baseline data on their structure is often lacking. Our limited knowledge of vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems presents a challenge for effective monitoring and mitigation of increasing anthropogenic threats, including destructive fishing and climate change. Using data from two stations differing in total epifaunal abundance and taxonomic composition, we compared the use of imagery collected by two non-invasive tools [remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and drop camera] and data collected with a trawl system, commonly used to quantify epibenthic megafauna in the deep sea. Imagery and trawl data captured different epifaunal patterns, the former being more efficient for capturing epifauna, particularly Pennatulacean recruits. The image-based methods also caused less disturbance, had higher position accuracy, and allow for analyses of spatial structure and species associations; fine-scale distributions could not be elucidated with a trawl. Abundance was greater for some taxa, and diversity accumulated faster with increasing sample size for the drop camera than the ROV at one station. However, there are trade-offs between these tools, including continuous and discrete sampling for the ROV and drop camera, respectively, which can affect follow-up analyses. Our results can be used to inform monitoring frameworks on the use of appropriate sampling tools. We recommend further research into tool sampling biases and biometric relationships to help integrate datasets collected with different tools.

show abstract

“…Visual imaging, using photos or video, is an essential component of most marine monitoring methods as it is non-destructive, provides a permanent record and is relatively efficient in the field (Carleton & Done, 1995;Durden et al, 2016;Flannery & Przeslawski, 2015). Image-collection platforms such as remotely operated vehicles (Raoult et al, 2020), automated underwater video (Foster et al, 2014;Ludvigsen & Sørensen, 2016) and towed-cameras (Carroll et al, 2020;Davis et al, 2019;Sheehan et al, 2016) using digital stills or video continue to become more sophisticated and economical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding how the accuracy and precision of data from new methods compares to the historical benchmarks of diver-based transects is a critical step in assessing their suitability (Flannery & Przeslawski, 2015;Lam et al, 2006). There are various comparisons of diver-based methods with other sampling techniques for fishes (Boavida et al, 2016), but relatively few have focused on benthic invertebrates, algae or benthic communities (Boavida et al, 2016;Brown et al, 2004;Foster et al, 2014;Jokiel et al, 2015;Lam et al, 2006;Leonard & Clark, 1993), and there are no quantitative comparisons of towed-camera systems and diver photo-transect methods for monitoring coral reef habitats, despite their increasing application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative comparison of towed-camera and diver-camera transects for monitoring coral reefs

Cresswell

Ryan

Heyward

et al. 2021

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel tools and methods for monitoring marine environments can improve efficiency but must not compromise long-term data records. Quantitative comparisons between new and existing methods are therefore required to assess their compatibility for monitoring. Monitoring of shallow water coral reefs is typically conducted using diver-based collection of benthic images along transects. Diverless systems for obtaining underwater images (e.g. towed-cameras, remotely operated vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles) are increasingly used for mapping coral reefs. Of these imaging platforms, towed-cameras offer a practical, low cost and efficient method for surveys but their utility for repeated measures in monitoring studies has not been tested. We quantitatively compare a towed-camera approach to repeated surveys of shallow water coral reef benthic assemblages on fixed transects, relative to benchmark data from diver photo-transects. Differences in the percent cover detected by the two methods was partly explained by differences in the morphology of benthic groups. The reef habitat and physical descriptors of the site—slope, depth and structural complexity—also influenced the comparability of data, with differences between the tow-camera and the diver data increasing with structural complexity and slope. Differences between the methods decreased when a greater number of images were collected per tow-camera transect. We attribute lower image quality (variable perspective, exposure and focal distance) and lower spatial accuracy and precision of the towed-camera transects as the key reasons for differences in the data from the two methods and suggest changes to the sampling design to improve the application of tow-cameras to monitoring.

show abstract

Comparison of sampling methods to assess benthic marine biodiversity : Are spatial and ecological relationships consistent among sampling gear?

Abstract: Geoscience Australia has tried to make the information in this product as accurate as possible. However, it does not guarantee that the information is totally accurate or complete. Therefore, you should not solely rely on this information when making a commercial decision.

Cited by 16 publications

References 44 publications

Can we generate robust species distribution models at the scale of the Southern Ocean?

Can we generate robust species distribution models at the scale of the Southern Ocean?

Comparing the Performance of a Remotely Operated Vehicle, a Drop Camera, and a Trawl in Capturing Deep-Sea Epifaunal Abundance and Diversity

A quantitative comparison of towed-camera and diver-camera transects for monitoring coral reefs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About