Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:40:03.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of low-cost image mosaics of hard-bottom sessile communities using SCUBA: comparisons of optical media and of proxy measures of community structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

H. van Rein ,
D.S. Schoeman ,
C.J. Brown ,
R. Quinn  and
J. Breen
H. van Rein*
Affiliation:
Centre for Coastal and Marine Research, School of Environmental Science, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA
D.S. Schoeman
Affiliation:
Centre for Coastal and Marine Research, School of Environmental Science, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA
C.J. Brown
Affiliation:
Centre for Coastal and Marine Research, School of Environmental Science, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, PO Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, B2Y 4A2
R. Quinn
Affiliation:
Centre for Coastal and Marine Research, School of Environmental Science, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA
J. Breen
Affiliation:
Conservation Science, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT7 2JA
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: H. van Rein, Centre for Coastal and Marine Research, School of Environmental Science, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Underwater image-based sampling procedures, using SCUBA, are compared using imagery collected from a temperate hard-substratum community. The effectiveness of a low-budget, high-resolution image mosaicing technique is assessed by comparing the relative efficiency of data collection, extraction and analysis among sampling procedures. In addition, a manipulative experiment tested whether the sampling procedures could detect the physical removal of 10% of the reef community. Overall, four factors were explored within the data: data collection media (stills and video), cover and community composition estimation techniques (visual cover estimation, frequency of occurrence and point extraction), change detection (pre- and post-impact) and depth (8, 14, 18 and 22 m). Stills imagery sampled the reef community at a higher image resolution than the video imagery, which enabled identification of more species and less-conspicuous benthic categories. Using the visual cover estimation technique, the stills imagery also had the greatest benefit in terms of efficiency and species identification. However, the experimental impact was detected using only the point extraction technique. The recommendations are that: (1) the image mosaicing technique is applied to fixed-station monitoring; (2) the point extraction technique be used for efficient and cost-effective monitoring at coarse taxonomic resolutions; and (3) survey depths remain constant over the duration of hard-substratum community monitoring.

Keywords

monitoring methodsimage mosaicscover estimationcommunity structuresubtidal rocky habitatsunderwater camerastemperate water
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 92 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 49 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, M.J. (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26, 32–46.Google Scholar
Anderson, M.J., Gorley, R.N. and Clarke, K.R. (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth: PRIMER-E, 214 pp.Google Scholar
Aronson, R.B., Edmunds, P.J., Precht, W.F., Swanson, D.W. and Levitan, D.R. (1994) Large-scale, long-term monitoring of Caribbean coral reefs: simple, quick, and inexpensive techniques. Atoll Research Bulletin 451, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, W.S. (1997) Geology and physical environment. In Barnes, J.H., Robson, C.F., Kaznowska, S.S., Doody, J.P., Davidson, N.C. and Buck, A.L. (eds) Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom: Region 17, Northern Ireland. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, pp.19–37.Google Scholar
Barrett, N., Edgar, G., Lawler, M. and Halley, V. (2007) A quantitative video baseline survey of reef biota and survey of marine habitats within Bathurst Channel, Southwest Tasmania 2002. Tasmania Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute Report, Tasmania, No. 26, 55 pp.Google Scholar
Beaumont, J.C., Brown, C.J. and Sayer, M.D.J. (2007) Evaluation of techniques used in the assessment of subtidal epibiotic assemblage structure. Biofouling 23, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, J.J., Burton, M., Bullimore, B., Newman, P.B. and Lock, K. (2006) Morphological monitoring of subtidal sponge assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Airoldi, L., Abbiati, M. and Cinelli, F. (1996) Estimate the abundance of benthic invertebrates: a comparison of procedures and variability between observers. Marine Ecology Progress Series 138, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnsack, J.L. (1979) Photographic quantitative sampling of hard-bottom benthic communities. Bulletin of Marine Science 29, 242–252.Google Scholar
Borja, A., Franco, J. and Perez, V. (2000) A marine biotic index to establish the ecological quality of soft-bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40, 1100–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, D.A. (2005) Quantitative characterisation of shallow marine benthic assemblages at Ryder Bay, Adelaide Island, Antarctica. Marine Biology 146, 1235–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, J., Hanna, J. and Harrison, T. (2006) A survey of the marine environment of Rathlin Island. Belfast: Environment and Heritage Service Report, 82 pp.Google Scholar
Brown, E.K., Cox, E., Jokiel, P.L., Rodgers, K.S., Smith, W.R., Tissot, B.N., Coles, S.L. and Hultquist, J. (2004) Development of benthic sampling methods for the Coral Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (CRAMP) in Hawai'i. Pacific Science 58, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, M., Lock, K., Gibbs, R. and Newman, P. (2007) Skomer Marine Nature Reserve project status report 2006/07. CCW Regional Report CCW/WW/07/4, 75 pp.Google Scholar
Cabaitan, P.C., Licuanan, W.Y. and Gomez, E.D. (2007) Comparison between videographic and photographic methods in assessing coral reef benthic communities. Science Diliman 19, 7–13.Google Scholar
Choi, K.S., Lam, E.Y. and Wong, K.K.Y. (2006) Source camera identification using footprints from lens aberration. In Sampat, N., Dicarlo, J.M. and Martin, R.A. (eds) Digital Photography II. Proceedings from Symposium on Electronic Imaging: Science and Technology Volume 6069, pp. 60690J.1–60690J.8.Google Scholar
Davies, J., Baxter, J., Bradley, M., Connor, D., Khan, J., Murray, E., Sanderson, W., Turnbull, C. and Vincent, M. (2001) Marine monitoring handbook. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 405 pp.Google Scholar
Dethier, M.N., Graham, E.S., Cohen, S. and Tear, L.M. (1993) Visual versus random point percent cover estimations: ‘objective’ is not always better. Marine Ecology Progress Series 96, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, R.J., Solan, M. and Valente, R.M. (2004) A review of approaches for classifying benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality. Journal of Environmental Management 73, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, S.P. and Connell, S.D. (2005) Quantifying percentage cover of subtidal organisms on rocky coasts: a comparison of the costs and benefits of standard methods. Marine and Freshwater Research 56, 865–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumas, P., Bertaud, A., Peignon, C., Léopold, M. and Pelletier, D. (2009) A ‘quick and clean’ photographic method for the description of coral reef habitats. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 368, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC (2000) Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Communities 327, 1–72.Google Scholar
EC (2008) Establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Communities 164, 19–40.Google Scholar
EEC (1992) On the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Council Directive 92/43/EEC. Official Journal 206, 7–50.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., Picton, B., Breen, J., Edwards, H. and Nunn, J. (2009) Sublittoral Survey Northern Ireland: a review of the status of Northern Ireland Priority Species of marine invertebrates. Belfast: Northern Ireland Environment Agency Report, 152 pp.Google Scholar
Gleason, A.C.R., Lirman, D., Williams, D.E., Gracias, N.R., Gintert, B.E., Madjidi, H., Reid, R.P., Boynton, G.C., Negahdaripour, S., Miller, M.W. and Kramer, P. (2007) Documenting hurricane impacts on coral reefs using two dimensional video-mosaic technology. Marine Ecology 28, 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, A.C.R., Gracias, N., Lirman, D., Gintert, B.E., Smith, T.B., Dick, M. and Reid, R.P. (2010) Landscape video mosaic from a mesophotic coral reef. Coral Reefs 29, 253–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gracias, N. and Santos-Victor, J. (1998) Automatic mosaic creation of the ocean floor. In Oceans'98—Conference Proceedings, Volumes 1–3; IEEE OCEANS Conference and Exhibition on Engineering for Sustainable Use of the Oceans (OCEANS 98), pp. 257–262.Google Scholar
Hill, J. and Wilkinson, C. (2004) Methods for ecological monitoring of coral reefs. Townsville, QL: Australian Institute of Marine Science, 117 pp.Google Scholar
Houk, P. and Van Woesik, R. (2006) Coral reef benthic video surveys facilitate long-term monitoring in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: toward an optimal sampling strategy. Pacific Science 60, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerosch, K., Luedtke, A., Schlueter, M. and Ioannidis, G.T. (2007) Automatic content-based analysis of georeferenced image data: detection of Beggiatoa mats in seafloor video mosaics from the Halkon Mosby Mud Volcano. Computers and Geoscience 33, 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jokiel, P.L., Rodgers, K.S., Brown, E.K., Kenyon, J.C., Aeby, G., Smith, W.R. and Farell, F. (2005) Comparison of methods used to estimate coral cover in the Hawaiian Islands. NOAA/NOS NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Report, Hawai‘i, 22 pp.Google Scholar
Lam, K., Shin, P.K.S., Bradbeer, R., Randall, D., Ku, K.K.K., Hodgson, P. and Cheung, S.G. (2006) Comparison of video and point intercept transect methods of monitoring subtropical coral communities. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 333, 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, G.H. and Clark, R.P. (1993) Point quadrat versus video transect estimates of the cover of benthic red algae. Marine Ecology Progress Series 101, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leujak, W. and Ormond, R.F.G. (2007) Comparative accuracy and efficiency of six coral community survey methods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 351, 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lirman, D., Gracias, N.R., Gintert, B.E., Gleason, A.C.R., Reid, R.P., Negahdaripour, S. and Kramer, P. (2007) Development and application of a video-mosaic survey technology to document the status of coral reef communities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 125, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lirman, D., Gracias, N.R., Gintert, B.E., Gleason, A.C.R., Deangelo, G., Dick, M., Martinez, E. and Reid, R.P. (2010) Damage and recovery assessment of vessel grounding injuries on coral reef habitats by use of georeferenced landscape video mosaics. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 8, 88–97.Google Scholar
Lock, K., Burton, M., Gibbs, R. and Newman, P. (2009) Skomer Marine Nature Reserve status report 2008/09. CCW Regional Report, CCW/WW/09/2, 79 pp.Google Scholar
Martin, C.J.M. and Martin, E.A. (2002) An underwater photomosaic technique using Adobe Photoshop (TM). International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 31, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meese, R.J. and Tomich, P.A. (1992) Dots on the rocks: a comparison of percent cover estimation methods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 165, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. and Gilliland, P. (2000) Development of a monitoring programme and methods in Plymouth Sound cSAC: application of diver techniques 1999. Peterborough, UK: English Nature, 79 pp.Google Scholar
Ninio, R., Delean, S., Osborne, K. and Sweatman, H. (2003) Estimating cover of benthic organisms from underwater video images: variability associated with multiple observers. Marine Ecology Progress Series 265, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, D.M., Shears, N.T., Babcock, R.C. and Haggitt, T.R. (2004) Fine-scale habitat change in a marine reserve, mapped using radio-acoustically positioned video transects. Marine and Freshwater Research 55, 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pech, D., Condal, A.R., Bourgel, E. and Ardisson, P.L. (2004) Abundance estimation of rocky shore invertebrates at small spatial scale by high-resolution digital photography and digital image analysis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 299, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preskitt, L.B., Vroom, P.S. and Smith, C.M. (2004) A rapid ecological assessment (REA) quantitative survey method for benthic algae using photoquadrats with SCUBA. Pacific Science 58, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puente, A. and Juanes, J.A. (2008) Testing taxonomic resolution, data transformation and selection of species for monitoring macroalgae communities. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 78, 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, R., Blomqvist, M., Nilsson, H.C., Cederwall, H. and Dimming, A. (2004) Marine quality assessment by use of benthic species-abundance distribution: a proposed new protocol within the European Water Framework Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, 728–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rzhanov, Y. and Mayer, L. (2004) Deep-sea image processing. In Oceans ‘04 MTS/IEEE Techno-Ocean ‘04, Volumes 1–2, pp. 647–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rzhanov, Y., Mayer, L., Beaulieu, S., Shank, T., Soule, S.A. and Fornari, D.J. (2006) Deep-sea Geo-referenced Video Mosaics. Oceans 1–6.Google Scholar
Sayer, M.D.J. and Poonian, C. (2007) The influences of census technique on estimating indices of macrofaunal population density in the temperate rocky subtidal zone. Underwater Technology 27, 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shears, N.T. (2007) Shallow subtidal reef communities at the Poor Knights Islands Marine Reserve after eight years of no-take protection. Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy Report, Wellington, 48 pp.Google Scholar
US Fish and Wildlife Service (2004) URL: (http://www.fws.gov/fire/downloads/monitor.pdf) (accessed 19 October 2010).Google Scholar
Van Rein, H., Brown, C.J., Quinn, R. and Breen, J. (2009) A review of sublittoral monitoring methods in temperate waters: a focus on scale. Underwater Technology 28, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, A.G., Pessel, N., Borgetto, M., Jouffroy, J., Opderbecke, J. and Rigaud, V. (2003) Real-time geo-referenced video mosaicking with the MATISSE system. Oceans 2003 Mts/ieee: celebrating the past…teaming toward the future. IEEE 2319–2324.Google Scholar
Whittington, M.W., Holt, R., Irving, R., Northen, K. and Stanwell-Smith, D. (2006) Across-Wales Diving Monitoring Project Volume 2: standard operating procedures. Countryside Council for Wales Report: 25b, Bangor, 76 pp.Google Scholar
Wood, R. (1999) Reef evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar