Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Visual versus video methods for estimating reef...

Electronic data

  • Wilson et al. 2017 Ecol Indic

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Ecological Indicators. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Ecological Indicators, 85, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038

    Accepted author manuscript, 272 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Visual versus video methods for estimating reef fish biomass

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Visual versus video methods for estimating reef fish biomass. / Wilson, Shaun K.; Graham, Nicholas Anthony James; Holmes, Tom et al.

In: Ecological Indicators, Vol. 85, 01.02.2018, p. 146-152.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Wilson, SK, Graham, NAJ, Holmes, T, MacNeil, MA & Ryan, N 2018, 'Visual versus video methods for estimating reef fish biomass', Ecological Indicators, vol. 85, pp. 146-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038

APA

Wilson, S. K., Graham, N. A. J., Holmes, T., MacNeil, M. A., & Ryan, N. (2018). Visual versus video methods for estimating reef fish biomass. Ecological Indicators, 85, 146-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038

Vancouver

Wilson SK, Graham NAJ, Holmes T, MacNeil MA, Ryan N. Visual versus video methods for estimating reef fish biomass. Ecological Indicators. 2018 Feb 1;85:146-152. Epub 2017 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038

Author

Wilson, Shaun K. ; Graham, Nicholas Anthony James ; Holmes, Tom et al. / Visual versus video methods for estimating reef fish biomass. In: Ecological Indicators. 2018 ; Vol. 85. pp. 146-152.

Bibtex

@article{2832a0b9ec684a1da3e1e301388d238d,
title = "Visual versus video methods for estimating reef fish biomass",
abstract = "Estimates of fish biomass collated at the community level are reliable indicators of fish and ecosystem health. Data to calculate fish biomass is routinely collected using either underwater visual census (UVC) or stereo diver operated video (DOV), although the compatibility of UVC and DOV based estimates are yet to be assessed. Accordingly, we calculated and compared community level measures of coral reef fish biomass at Ningaloo reef (Western Australia) using both UVC and DOV. The UVC based biomass estimates were 788 kg/Ha, which was ∼50% greater than those from DOV (500 kg/Ha). Differences between the methods were primarily due to DOV measuring the length of only ∼40% of fish detected by video, preventing fish specific weight calculations for all fish encountered. When the size of unmeasured fish was assumed to be the median value of fish measured by DOV, revised DOV+ estimates of community biomass (778 kg/Ha) were similar to those from UVC. However, even when unmeasured fish were included in DOV calculations, biomass of some families (serranids) were still higher when using UVC. Conversely, DOV adjusted estimates of pomacentrid biomass were higher than those from UVC, due to DOV measuring fewer small bodied fish (<3 cm), thus having a larger median size for the high number of unmeasured pomacentrids compared to UVC. Our results suggest that community measures of fish biomass from DOV and UVC are broadly comparable once weights of unmeasured fish are incorporated into DOV estimates. This may increase the spatial and temporal scales at which fish biomass can be monitored, although compatibility of data will depend on the composition and size distribution of the fish assemblages.",
keywords = "Methodological comparison, Size distribution, Fisheries management, Coral reef monitoring, Digital image techniques",
author = "Wilson, {Shaun K.} and Graham, {Nicholas Anthony James} and Tom Holmes and MacNeil, {M. Aaron} and Nicola Ryan",
note = "This is the author{\textquoteright}s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Ecological Indicators. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Ecological Indicators, 85, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038",
year = "2018",
month = feb,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038",
language = "English",
volume = "85",
pages = "146--152",
journal = "Ecological Indicators",
issn = "1470-160X",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visual versus video methods for estimating reef fish biomass

AU - Wilson, Shaun K.

AU - Graham, Nicholas Anthony James

AU - Holmes, Tom

AU - MacNeil, M. Aaron

AU - Ryan, Nicola

N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Ecological Indicators. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Ecological Indicators, 85, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Estimates of fish biomass collated at the community level are reliable indicators of fish and ecosystem health. Data to calculate fish biomass is routinely collected using either underwater visual census (UVC) or stereo diver operated video (DOV), although the compatibility of UVC and DOV based estimates are yet to be assessed. Accordingly, we calculated and compared community level measures of coral reef fish biomass at Ningaloo reef (Western Australia) using both UVC and DOV. The UVC based biomass estimates were 788 kg/Ha, which was ∼50% greater than those from DOV (500 kg/Ha). Differences between the methods were primarily due to DOV measuring the length of only ∼40% of fish detected by video, preventing fish specific weight calculations for all fish encountered. When the size of unmeasured fish was assumed to be the median value of fish measured by DOV, revised DOV+ estimates of community biomass (778 kg/Ha) were similar to those from UVC. However, even when unmeasured fish were included in DOV calculations, biomass of some families (serranids) were still higher when using UVC. Conversely, DOV adjusted estimates of pomacentrid biomass were higher than those from UVC, due to DOV measuring fewer small bodied fish (<3 cm), thus having a larger median size for the high number of unmeasured pomacentrids compared to UVC. Our results suggest that community measures of fish biomass from DOV and UVC are broadly comparable once weights of unmeasured fish are incorporated into DOV estimates. This may increase the spatial and temporal scales at which fish biomass can be monitored, although compatibility of data will depend on the composition and size distribution of the fish assemblages.

AB - Estimates of fish biomass collated at the community level are reliable indicators of fish and ecosystem health. Data to calculate fish biomass is routinely collected using either underwater visual census (UVC) or stereo diver operated video (DOV), although the compatibility of UVC and DOV based estimates are yet to be assessed. Accordingly, we calculated and compared community level measures of coral reef fish biomass at Ningaloo reef (Western Australia) using both UVC and DOV. The UVC based biomass estimates were 788 kg/Ha, which was ∼50% greater than those from DOV (500 kg/Ha). Differences between the methods were primarily due to DOV measuring the length of only ∼40% of fish detected by video, preventing fish specific weight calculations for all fish encountered. When the size of unmeasured fish was assumed to be the median value of fish measured by DOV, revised DOV+ estimates of community biomass (778 kg/Ha) were similar to those from UVC. However, even when unmeasured fish were included in DOV calculations, biomass of some families (serranids) were still higher when using UVC. Conversely, DOV adjusted estimates of pomacentrid biomass were higher than those from UVC, due to DOV measuring fewer small bodied fish (<3 cm), thus having a larger median size for the high number of unmeasured pomacentrids compared to UVC. Our results suggest that community measures of fish biomass from DOV and UVC are broadly comparable once weights of unmeasured fish are incorporated into DOV estimates. This may increase the spatial and temporal scales at which fish biomass can be monitored, although compatibility of data will depend on the composition and size distribution of the fish assemblages.

KW - Methodological comparison

KW - Size distribution

KW - Fisheries management

KW - Coral reef monitoring

KW - Digital image techniques

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.038

M3 - Journal article

VL - 85

SP - 146

EP - 152

JO - Ecological Indicators

JF - Ecological Indicators

SN - 1470-160X

ER -