Observer bias and detection probability in underwater visual census of fish assemblages measured with independent double-observers

article i nfo Underwater visual census (UVC) is one of the more frequently used methods for monitoring of subtidal fish com- munities. However, population estimates from UVC are plagued by numerous biases that ultimately reduce the diagnostic power of the data. Adaptations to methods that account for detection errors by employing multiple ob- servers can reduce many of these biases, but have received little consideration in past marine research. In the ter- restrial environment the double-observer method has been successfully applied to estimate visibility bias, observer bias and detection probabilities. We used an independent double-observer method to measure the influ- ence of observertype (volunteers and researchers) and fish community structure on the detection probability and count dissimilarity betweentwo observers simultaneously surveying the same transect. Community data collected by volunteers were of a consistently lower quality than that collected by researchers. However, this was not the case for the dominant species for which researchers and volunteers produced similar data. The analysis further suggested that rare species contributed disproportionately to the bias in UVC data because the abundance of a spe- cies within a survey area determined its detection probability. Our results highlight the need to account for detec- tion probability during UVC and it is recommended that future research based on UVC integrates an independent double-observer approach. Furthermore, the results indicate that care needs to be taken when designing monitor- ing programmes as allowing inexperienced volunteers to participate can undermine the integrity of the data. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[1]  P. Vos,et al.  A Framework for the Design of Ecological Monitoring Programs as a Tool for Environmental and Nature Management , 2000 .

[2]  P. Cowley,et al.  Optimisation of underwater visual census and controlled angling methods for monitoring subtidal temperate reef fish communities , 2009 .

[3]  E. Harvey,et al.  Protection from fishing alters the species composition of fish assemblages in a temperate-tropical transition zone , 2007 .

[4]  M. Smith Effects of observer swimming speed on sample counts of temperate rocky reef fish assemblages , 1988 .

[5]  Richard B. Chandler,et al.  unmarked: An R Package for Fitting Hierarchical Models of Wildlife Occurrence and Abundance , 2011 .

[6]  Marti J. Anderson,et al.  Spatial variation and effects of habitat on temperate reef fish assemblages in northeastern New Zealand , 2004 .

[7]  J. Nichols,et al.  A DOUBLE-OBSERVER APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING DETECTION PROBABILITY AND ABUNDANCE FROM POINT COUNTS , 2000 .

[8]  William J. Walsh,et al.  Impact of observers experience level on counts of fishes in underwater visual surveys , 2006 .

[9]  R. D. Cook,et al.  A design for estimating visibility bias in aerial surveys , 1979 .

[10]  G. Edgar,et al.  Biases associated with the use of underwater visual census techniques to quantify the density and size-structure of fish populations , 2004 .

[11]  M. Kulbicki,et al.  Factors affecting the detection distances of reef fish: implications for visual counts , 2011 .

[12]  R. Thresher,et al.  Comparative analysis of visual census techniques for highly mobile, reef-associated piscivores (Carangidae) , 1986, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[13]  Chris S. Elphick,et al.  How you count counts: the importance of methods research in applied ecology , 2008 .

[14]  M. Kulbicki,et al.  Comparison of density estimates derived from strip transect and distance sampling for underwater visual censuses: a case study of Chaetodontidae and Pomacanthidae , 1999 .

[15]  A. Zuur,et al.  Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R , 2009 .

[16]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  MODELING COUNT DATA OF RARE SPECIES: SOME STATISTICAL ISSUES , 2005 .

[17]  Brice X Semmens,et al.  Conservation and management applications of the REEF volunteer fish monitoring program. , 2003, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[18]  W. P. Williams,et al.  Similarity measure bias in river benthic Aufwuchs community analysis , 1997 .

[19]  R. Millar,et al.  Detection of spatial variability in relative density of fishes: comparison of visual census, angling, and baited underwater video , 2000 .

[20]  B. Mapstone,et al.  Observer effects and training in underwater visual surveys of reef fishes , 1997 .

[21]  Neville S. Barrett,et al.  Effects of the declaration of marine reserves on Tasmanian reef fishes, invertebrates and plants , 1999 .

[22]  B. Manly,et al.  A double‐observer method for reducing bias in faecal pellet surveys of forest ungulates , 2008 .

[23]  K. Pollock,et al.  An Unreconciled Double-Observer Method for Estimating Detection Probability and Abundance , 2010 .

[24]  M. Conroy,et al.  Accounting for detectability in reef-fish biodiversity estimates , 2008 .

[25]  A. Cheal,et al.  Comparing visual counts of coral reef fish: implications of transect width and species selection , 1997 .

[26]  G. Edgar,et al.  The conservation-related benefits of a systematic marine biological sampling programme: The Tasmanian reef bioregionalisation as a case study , 1997 .

[27]  Gary A. Kendrick,et al.  A comparison of underwater visual distance estimates made by scuba divers and a stereo-video system: implications for underwater visual census of reef fish abundance , 2004 .

[28]  K. Bjorndal,et al.  Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems , 2001, Science.

[29]  M. Kulbicki How the acquired behaviour of commercial reef fishes may influence the results obtained from visual censuses , 1998 .

[30]  Peter J. Mumby,et al.  A critical assessment of data derived from coral cay conservation volunteers , 1995 .

[31]  A. Götz,et al.  Effects of fishing on population structure and life history of roman Chrysoblephus laticeps (Sparidae) , 2008 .

[32]  M. Conroy,et al.  Detection heterogeneity in underwater visual‐census data , 2008 .

[33]  Graham J. Edgar,et al.  Ecological effects of marine protected areas on rocky reef communities—a continental-scale analysis , 2009 .

[34]  Alain F. Zuur,et al.  A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems , 2010 .

[35]  Nicholas A. J. Graham,et al.  Influence of instantaneous variation on estimates of coral reef fish populations and communities , 2007 .

[36]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[37]  W. Darwall,et al.  An evaluation of the suitability of non-specialist volunteer researchers for coral reef fish surveys. Mafia Island, Tanzania — A case study , 1996 .

[38]  T. J. Willis,et al.  Visual census methods underestimate density and diversity of cryptic reef fishes , 2001 .

[39]  Alistair Graham,et al.  Investigating Observer Bias in Aerial Survey by Simultaneous Double-Counts , 1989 .

[40]  Laurent Wantiez,et al.  Counting coral reef fishes: Interaction between fish life-history traits and transect design , 2010 .

[41]  Murray Logan,et al.  Biostatistical Design and Analysis Using R: A Practical Guide , 2010 .

[42]  S. Swearer,et al.  A comparison of two survey methods: differences between underwater visual census and baited remote underwater video , 2010 .

[43]  Joanna Mills Flemming,et al.  Overestimating Fish Counts by Non-Instantaneous Visual Censuses: Consequences for Population and Community Descriptions , 2010, PloS one.

[44]  Daniel R. Brumbaugh,et al.  Reserve effects and natural variation in coral reef communities , 2008 .