A novel use of Stereo Baited Remote Underwater Video and Drop-Down Video for biodiversity and marine landscape mapping and prediction

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319355 April 3, 2025 20 / 23 PLOS ONE Marine landscape and biodiversity mapping using SBRUVs and DDV 10. Hall-Spencer J, Allain V, Fosså JH. Trawling damage to Northeast Atlantic ancient coral reefs. Proc Biol Sci. 2002;269(1490):507–11. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1910 PMID: 11886643 11. Auster PJ, Malatesta RJ, Langton RW, Watting L, Valentine PC, Donaldson CLS, et al. The impacts of mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the gulf of Maine (Northwest Atlantic): Implications for conservation of fish populations. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 1996;4(2):185–202. https://doi. org/10.1080/10641269609388584 12. Horne JK. Acoustic approaches to remote species identification: a review. Fisheries Oceanography. 2000;9(4):356–71. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2419.2000.00143.x 13. Barrett N, Seiler J, Anderson T, Williams S, Nichol S, Hill S. Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) for mapping marine biodiversity in coastal and shelf waters: Implications for marine management. Sydney: OCEANS’10 IEEE; 2010. p. 1–6. 14. Cappo M, Harvey E, Malcolm H, Speare P. Potential of Video Techniques to Monitor Diversity, Abundance and Size of Fish in Studies of Marine Protected Areas. In: Beumer JP, Grant A, Smith DC, editors. Aquatic protected areas What works best and how do we know? Queensland: University of Queensland; 2003. p. 455-64. 15. Langlois T, Harvey E, Fitzpatrick B, Meeuwig J, Shedrawi G, Watson D. Cost-efficient sampling of

fish assemblages: comparison of baited video stations and diver video transects. Aquatic Biology. 2010;9(2):155–68. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00235 16. Bicknell A, Godley B, Sheehan E, Votier S, Witt M. Camera technology for monitoring marine biodi- versity and human impact. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2016;14(8):424–32. https://doi. org/10.1002/fee.1322 17. Harvey E, Newman S, McLean D, Cappo M, Meeuwig J, Skepper C. Comparison of the relative effi- ciencies of stereo-BRUVs and traps for sampling tropical continental shelf demersal fishes. Fisheries Research. 2012;125:108–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.01.026 18. Elliott SAM, Sabatino AD, Heath MR, Turrell WR, Bailey DM. Landscape effects on demersal fish revealed by field observations and predictive seabed modelling. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189011 PMID: 29228035 19. Bailey D, King N, Priede I. Cameras and carcasses: historical and current methods for using artificial food falls to study deep-water animals. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2007;350:179–91. https://doi. org/10.3354/meps07187 20. Cappo M, Harvey E, Shortis M, editors. Counting and measuring fish with baited video techniques-an overview. Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop Proceedings. Tasmania: Australian Society for Fish Biology; 2006. 21. Harvey ES, Cappo M, Butler JJ, Hall N, Kendrick GA. Bait attraction affects the performance of remote underwater video stations in assessment of demersal fish community structure. Marine Ecol-

ogy Progress Series. 2007;350:245–54. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07192 22. Watson D, Harvey E, Anderson M, Kendrick G. A comparison of temperate reef fish assemblages recorded by three underwater stereo-video techniques. Marine Biology. 2005;148(2):415–25. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00227-005-0090-6 23. Cappo M, Speare P, De’ath G. Comparison of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) and prawn (shrimp) trawls for assessments of fish biodiversity in inter-reefal areas of the great barrier reef marine park. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2004;302(2):123–52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jembe.2003.10.006 24. Unsworth RKF, Peters JR, McCloskey RM, Hinder SL. Optimising stereo baited underwater video for sampling fish and invertebrates in temperate coastal habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2014;150:281–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.03.020 25. Ghazilou A, Shokri M, Gladstone W. Comparison of baited remote underwater video (BRUV) and underwater visual census (UVC) for assessment of reef fish in a marginal reef in the northern Persian Gulf. Iranian Journal of Ichthyology. 2019;6(3):197–207. https://doi.org/10.22034/iji.v6i3.353 26. Lowry M, Folpp H, Gregson M, Suthers I. Comparison of baited remote underwater video (BRUV) and underwater visual census (UVC) for assessment of artificial reefs in estuaries. Journal of Experimen- tal Marine Biology and Ecology. 2012;416–417:243–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2012.01.013 27. Dunlop KM, Marian Scott E, Parsons D, Bailey DM. Do agonistic behaviours bias baited remote

underwater video surveys of fish? Marine Ecology. 2014;36(3):810–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ maec.12185 28. Seitz RD, Wennhage H, Bergström U, Lipcius RN, Ysebaert T. Ecological value of coastal habitats for commercially and ecologically important species. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2013;71(3):648– 65. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst152