Assessing reef fish assemblage structure: how do different stereo-video techniques compare?

215 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.

Underwater video techniques for observing coastal marine biodiversity: A review of sixty years of publications (1952–2012) (2014, methodology): “(2000); Rogers and Miller (2001); Watson et al. (2005, 2010); Houk and Van Woesik (2006); Kenyon et al.”
A comparison of visual‐ and stereo‐video based fish community assessment methods in tropical and temperate marine waters of Western Australia (2013, background): “Field data can be collected relatively easily by stereo-DOV operators with little experience in fish identification, and this can limit the potential for inter and intra observer variation during data collection (Harman et al. 2003; Watson et al. 2010).”
The application of predicted habitat models to investigate the spatial ecology of demersal fish assemblages (2010, background): “The advantage of stereo-video over single camera BRUVs is the ability to make precise and accurate measurements of the length of a Wsh and convert these lengths to weight (Harvey and Shortis 1996; Harvey et al. 2001; Harvey et al. 2002, Watson et al. 2010 ).”
What is Big BRUVver up to? Methods and uses of baited underwater video (2017, methodology): “BRUVS have been compared to many other commonly-used techniques for assessing fish assemblages with the most common comparison being between BRUVS and Underwater Visual Census (UVC) (e.g. Stobart et al. 2007; Colton and Swearer 2010; Lowry et al. 2012) or Diver Operated Video (DOV) (Watson et al. 20”