Comparison of the relative efficiencies of stereo-BRUVs and traps for sampling tropical continental shelf demersal fishes

162 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Calibration of pelagic stereo‐BRUVs and scientific longline surveys for sampling sharks (2014, methodology): “Blue light wavelength is thought to be below the spectral sensitivity range for many fish species (Von Der Emde,Mogdans &Kapoor 2004), and therefore, it is expected to have minimal impact on fish behaviour (Harvey et al. 2012a).”
Underwater video techniques for observing coastal marine biodiversity: A review of sixty years of publications (1952–2012) (2014, methodology): “Pilchards 169 (Sardinops sp.) are currently used in most studies (McLean et al., 2010, 2011; Watson et al., 170 2010; Bassett and Montgomery, 2011; Göetze et al., 2011; Harvey et al., 2012a; Langlois et 171 al., 2012a, 2012b).”
What is Big BRUVver up to? Methods and uses of baited underwater video (2017, background): “Other comparisons include: BRUVS versus baited traps (Harvey et al. 2012a; Wakefield et al. 2013; Langlois et al. 2015); versus angling (Willis et al. 2000; Langlois et al. 2012a; Gardner and Struthers 2013); versus trawling (Cappo et al. 2004); versus seine netting (Whitmarsh 2012); versus…”