A baited underwater video technique to assess shallow water Mediterranean fish assemblages: methodological evaluation

By B. Stobart, J. García-Charton, C. Espejo, E. Rochel, R. Goñi, O. Reñones, A. Herrero, R. Crec'hriou, S. Polti, C. Marcos and 2 more. 2007

162 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A baited underwater video (BUV) system for the study of reef-associated fish populations on shallow (10–20 m) rocky habitats in the western Mediterranean was assessed at four locations in Spain and two in France. We describe the apparatus and optimal deployment times for video sampling. Different species had different response times to the bait, with four response groups identified. Examination of species accumulation curves and fish abundance estimates over time revealed that a period of approximately 20 min deployment was sufficient to capture most species on video. The technique sampled a wide variety of species, with 51 species belonging to 33 families recorded. Nine species of fish appeared regularly at the bait in relatively high numbers, and consist of six carnivores (Serranus cabrilla, Serranus scriba, Coris julis, Diplodus annularis, Diplodus vulgaris, Thalassoma pavo), two planktivores (Chromis chromis, Boops boops) and one omnivore (Oblada melanura). However, abundance estimates for other species were generally very low (mean b1 per location). Comparison of results from BUV with those obtained by Underwater Visual Census (UVC) at the same locations suggests that although BUVestimates species richness reliably, UVC is the more suitable technique for estimating the abundance of shallow-water reef fish in the Mediterranean. BUV improvements are suggested to optimise its use in deeper waters where UVC using scuba is inoperable. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Subfields: Ecology, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f366e7c216d58596ab244788a0910f41a3c32b72

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Bait type affects fish assemblages and feeding guilds observed at baited remote underwater video stations (2013, methodology): “BRUV appears to be highly effective in estimating the abundance of carnivores and planktivores (Stobart et al. 2007), but ineffective in estimating herbivore abundance (Colton & Swearer 2010).”
Appropriate set times to represent patterns of rocky reef fishes using baited video (2015, unknown): “In one of the few other studies that compared different BRUV set times, Stobart et al. (2007) determined that a BRUV deployment time of 15– 20 min was sufficient and that species accumulation after 35 min was so low that further deployment time would be of little benefit.”
Underwater video techniques for observing coastal marine biodiversity: A review of sixty years of publications (1952–2012) (2014, background): “…UVC (Willis and 401 Babcock, 2000), while others show that more fish species were detected with UVC than with 402 BRUV (Tessier et al., 2005; Langlois et al., 2006; Stobart et al., 2007; Colton and Swearer, 403 2010; Lowry et al., 2012) and DOV (Greene and Alevizon, 1989; Pelletier et al., 2011).”
A comparison of two survey methods: differences between underwater visual census and baited remote underwater video (2010, unknown): “When the underwater video is stationary, as in the case of a BRUV, the chance of seeing cryptic species declines further (Stobart et al. 2007).”
Models and indicators for assessing conservation and fisheries-related effects of marine protected areas (2008, unknown): “Several of these points were already raised by Sumaila et al. (2000).”
Cost-efficient sampling of fish assemblages: comparison of baited video stations and diver video transects (2010, background): “Stereo-video techniques are particularly useful for horizontally facing baited video stations (Harvey et al. 2007, Stobart et al. 2007, Shortis et al. 2009) as they can obtain accurate estimates of fish length and define the area of the sampling unit by measurement of the distance to the cameras…”
What is Big BRUVver up to? Methods and uses of baited underwater video (2017, methodology): “…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. 2005; Langlois et al. 2010; Watson et…”