Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 150, Issue 6, pp 1379–1395 | Cite as

Does breathing apparatus affect fish counts and observations? A comparison at three New Zealand fished and protected areas

  • R. G. ColeEmail author
  • C. Syms
  • N. K. Davey
  • N. Gust
  • P. Notman
  • R. Stewart
  • C. A. Radford
  • G. Carbines
  • M. H. Carr
  • A. G. Jeffs
Research Article

Abstract

Across three areas, open-circuit scuba (OC) and rebreather (RB) surveys produced similar results for the density and size distribution of fish species inside and outside marine reserves. At Tonga Island, more Notolabrus celidotus were counted with OC than with RB, independently of reserve status [log-scale response ratio of OC/RB (RR) = 0.7]. At Long Island, differences in abundance of Parapercis colias between sampling methods were small at reserve sites (RR = −0.1), but more were counted with scuba than with RBs at fished sites (RR = 0.5). RRs for Pagrus auratus were −1.0 in fished areas and 0.3 in the reserve at Leigh. We also sampled each site using a baited video system (BUV) to establish whether diver-transects sampled the full size range of target species. Most fish in BUV views were Parapercis colias at Long Island (97%), and Pagrus auratus at Leigh (77%). Size structures of Parapercis colias were similar among all three sampling methods within reserve and fished areas at Long Island (max. chi-squared distance = 0.11). BUV samples for Pagrus auratus at Leigh did not detect a prominent juvenile size class observed by divers, but size-frequency distributions of OC, RB, and BUV corresponded at sizes beyond 15 cm TL (max. chi-squared distance = 0.08). To investigate the effects of diver sound on fish behaviour at Long Island, we also compared fish activity when divers with RBs or scuba were present, when the sound of each breathing apparatus was replayed underwater, when no divers were present and no sound was replayed, and when bait was provided, within the reserve only. The lowest number of fish visits to the focal area (mean of 3.0 per 10 min) for Parapercis colias occurred with RB divers present. Maximum abundances of Parapercis colias in all speaker treatments averaged 4.1 per 10 min, whereas with scuba divers present maximum abundances were 5.7, and with baits the average was 38.0 per 10 min.

Keywords

Breathing Apparatus Scuba Diver Marine Reserve Fish Behaviour Reserve Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to S. Mercer who taught us to rebreathe, our skippers, B. and L. Bird of Seabird, and B. Doak and M. Birch of Hawere, for their boating expertise, N. Andrew, A. Cozens, J. McLean, and K. Grange for administrative assistance, and E. Harvey, T. Willis, and the referees for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by NIWA Visiting Scientist Grant VSM024 to M. Carr, FRST contract CO1X0004 to NIWA. M. Carr and C. Syms were supported by the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans.

References

  1. Babcock RC, Kelly S, Shears NT, Walker JW, Willis TJ (1999) Changes in community structure in temperate marine reserves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 189:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell and Associates (2000) Results from the Marlborough Sounds recreational fishing survey 1998. Report REC9807 to Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand, 73 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Brock VE (1954) A preliminary report on a method of estimating reef fish populations. J Wildl Manage 18:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman CJ, Atkinson MJA (1986) Fish behaviour in relation to divers. Prog Underwater Sci 11:1–14Google Scholar
  5. Chapman CJ, Johnston ADF, Dunn JR, Creasey DJ (1974) Reactions of fish to sound generated by divers’ open-circuit underwater breathing apparatus. Mar Biol 27:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole RG (1994) Abundance, size structure, and diver-oriented behaviour of three large benthic carnivorous fishes in a marine reserve in northeastern New Zealand. Biol Conserv 70:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole RG, McBride GB (2004) Assessing impacts of dredge spoil disposal using equivalence tests: implications of a precautionary (proof of safety) approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 279:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole RG, Villouta E, Davidson RJ (2000) Direct evidence of limited dispersal of the reef fish Parapercis colias (Pinguipedidae) within a marine reserve and adjacent fished areas. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 10:421–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson RJ (2001) Changes in population parameters and behaviour of blue cod (Parapercis colias; Pinguipedidae) in Long Island-Kokomohua Marine Reserve, Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 11:417–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson RJ, Chadderton WL (1994) Marine reserve site selection along the Abel Tasman National Park coast, New Zealand: consideration of subtidal rocky communities. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 4:153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Francis M (2001) Coastal fishes of New Zealand. 3rd edn. Reed, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  12. Halpern BS (2003) The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol Appl 13:S117–S137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanlon RT, Hixon RF, Hendrix JP Jr, Forsyth JW, Sutton TE, Cross MR, Dawson R, Booth L (1982) The application of closed circuit scuba for biological observations. In: Blanchard J, Mair J, Morrison I (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international scientific symposium of CMAS, Proceedings of the diving science symposium. National Environmental Research Council, London, pp. 43–52Google Scholar
  14. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kingsford MJ (1998) Reef fishes. In: Kingsford MJ, Battershill CN (eds) Studying temperate marine environments. A handbook for ecologists. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, NZ, pp 132–166Google Scholar
  16. Kulbicki M (1998) How the acquired behaviour of commercial reef fishes may influence the results obtained from visual censuses. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 222:11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WA, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS® system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  18. Lobel PS (2001) Fish bioacoustics and behavior: passive acoustic detection and the application of a closed-circuit rebreather for field study. Mar Technol Soc J 35:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Radford CA, Jeffs AG, Tindle CT, Cole RG, Montgomery JC (2005) Bubbled waters: the noise generated by underwater breathing apparatus. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 38:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shears NT, Babcock RC (2002) Marine reserves demonstrate top-down control of community structure on temperate reefs. Oecologia 132:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson AA, Mapstone BD (1997) Observer effects and training in underwater visual surveys of reef fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 154:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Willis TJ, Babcock RC (2000) A baited underwater video system for the determination of relative density of carnivorous reef fish. Mar Freshw Res 51:755–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Willis TJ, Millar RB, Babcock RC (2000) Detection of spatial variability in relative density of fishes: comparison of visual census, angling, and baited underwater video. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 198:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Willis TJ, Millar RB, Babcock RC (2003) Protection of exploited fishes in temperate regions: high density and biomass of snapper Pagrus auratus (Sparidae) in northern New Zealand marine reserves. J Appl Ecol 40:214–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. G. Cole
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Syms
    • 2
    • 7
  • N. K. Davey
    • 1
  • N. Gust
    • 3
  • P. Notman
    • 4
  • R. Stewart
    • 4
  • C. A. Radford
    • 5
  • G. Carbines
    • 6
  • M. H. Carr
    • 2
  • A. G. Jeffs
    • 6
  1. 1.NIWANelsonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA
  3. 3.NIWAChristchurchNew Zealand
  4. 4.NIWAWellingtonNew Zealand
  5. 5.Leigh Marine LaboratoryWarkworthNew Zealand
  6. 6.NIWAAucklandNew Zealand
  7. 7.School of Marine Biology and AquacultureJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations