Potential of video techniques to monitor diversity, abundance and size of fish in studies of Marine Protected Areas

By M. Cappo, Euan Harvey, H. Malcolm, P. Speare. 2003

272 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2b99d3f34a636dd59fce74fd87c6609a4ef0e5ed

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. J. Wraith
2. T. Langlois
3. B. Stobart
4. S. Whitmarsh
5. T. Lynch
6. T. Holmes
7. T. E. Minchinton
8. S. Newman

Citations in the corpus

• Cost-efficient sampling of fish assemblages: comparison of baited video stations and diver video transects (2010, background): “Estimates of Nmax are considered conservative, particularly in areas where fish occur in high densities (Cappo et al. 2003, 2007).”
• A comparison of visual‐ and stereo‐video based fish community assessment methods in tropical and temperate marine waters of Western Australia (2013, background): “Limitations associated with video image resolution, frame rate, and over/under-exposure, combined with limited time that fish are often within the camera’s field of view means that fish presence is often noted, but identity cannot accurately be resolved to the species level (Cappo et al. 2003).”
• Bait attraction affects the performance of remote underwater video stations in assessment of demersal fish community structure (2007, background): “The coefficients of variation for some extractive techniques, such as fish trapping, can be so high that the power to detect large changes in sample means is weak, requiring levels of replication that would be unacceptable in areas such as marine parks (Williams et al. 1997, Cappo et al. 2003).”
• A baited underwater video technique to assess shallow water Mediterranean fish assemblages: methodological evaluation (2007, methodology): “The response of planktivorous species to the bait could be attributed, amongst others, to available food supplies, an odour plume response, visual or micro-turbulence detection of the particles and bubbles emerging from the bait canister, or to an aggregation response where other fish activity is de”
• Bait type affects fish assemblages and feeding guilds observed at baited remote underwater video stations (2013, methodology): “We recorded 2 additional metrics from the tapes; the time of first arrival (t1st) for all species and the maximum number of each individual species viewed at any one time (Max N), as used by Cappo et al. (2003).”
• Calibration of pelagic stereo‐BRUVs and scientific longline surveys for sampling sharks (2014, background): “…and fishery-independent approach that is widely used to estimate biodiversity indices and relative abundancemeasures of a range of marine species (Cappo et al. 2003; Langlois et al. 2012b; Santana-Garcon et al. 2014b), including sharks (Brooks et al. 2011; Goetze & Fullwood 2013; White et al.…”
• A comparison of two survey methods: differences between underwater visual census and baited remote underwater video (2010, unknown): “However, there is a wellknown bottleneck in the processing of BRUV tapes (Willis et al. 2000, Cappo et al. 2003, Stobart et al. 2007).”
• Edge effects in patchy seagrass landscapes: The role of predation in determining fish distribution (2011, background): “…tested against other measures, MaxN has been shown to accurately reflect fish and species densities (Willis et al., 2000) and eliminates problems associated with fish being counted multiple times by ensuring an individual fish cannot be counted more than once in a single frame (Cappo et al., 2003).”
• Inter-reef vertebrate communities of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park determined by baited remote underwater video stations. (2007, methodology): “Such non-extractive video techniques offer the sampling advantages of underwater visual surveys and extractive fishing techniques, whilst avoiding some of the selectivity associated with these methods (see Willis et al. 2000, Cappo et al. 2003 for reviews).”