Effects of SCUBA bubbles on counts of roving piscivores in a large remote marine protected area

Autoři: Keolohilani H. Lopes, Jr aff001;  Ivor D. Williams aff003;  Randall K. Kosaki aff001;  Andrew E. Gray aff002;  Jason C. Leonard aff001
Působiště autorů: Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, United States of America aff001;  Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, United States of America aff002;  Ecosystem Sciences Division, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226370


This study examined the effects of SCUBA bubbles on fish counts in underwater visual surveys conducted in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM). Specifically, paired fish surveys were conducted at each survey site, utilizing two different gear types: open-circuit SCUBA (OC) and closed-circuit rebreather (CCR). Bubble exhaust released from the OC equipment is a potential source of bias for in-situ fish observations, as the associated audio and visual disturbances could either attract or repel fishes depending on whether their behavior is more driven by curiosity or caution. The study area, is a large (~1.5 million km2) and extremely remote marine protected area in which the response of coral reef fishes to divers represent natural behavior of naive fishes with little or no previous contact with humans. Historically, surveys conducted on OC in this area have shown an abundance of large roving piscivores and this study set out to determine the extant, if any, the audible and visual disturbances of OC bubbles have. The species typically seen in these prior surveys were Caranx ignobilis, Caranx melampygus, Aprion virescens, and a couple of species of sharks. We found differences in counts for some roving piscivores, including significantly more jacks observed on OC than CCR (Caranx ignobilis 57% more, and Caranx melampygus 113% more). Instance of first encounter, i.e. the time when a fish was first observed during a survey, also varied for some species. Higher numbers of Aprion virescens (p = 0.04), and C. melampygus (p = <0.001) were observed in the first 5-minutes of counts by divers on OC (i.e. when they were using breathing apparatus that produced noises that could be heard over long distances). Although not the focus of the study, we also assessed differences between OC and CCR counts for other groups of fishes. Estimated abundance of benthic damselfish was higher on OC than CCR, and counts of butterflyfish were lower on OC; but there were no significant differences for the other groups considered. This is an important control study that documents the natural responses of coral reef fishes to SCUBA bubbles generated by in-situ surveys.

Klíčová slova:

Animal behavior – Atolls – Breathing – Conservation science – Coral reefs – Marine fish – Sharks – Surveys


1. Williams ID, Walsh WJ, Tissot BN, Hallacher LE, Impact of observers’ experience level on counts of fishes in underwater visual surveys, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 310 (2006) 185–191. doi: 10.3354/meps310185

2. Bernard TF, Götz A, Kerwath SE, Wilke C.G., Observer bias and detection probability in underwater visual census of fish assemblages measured with independent double-observers, J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 443 (2013) 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2013.02.039

3. Ward-Paige C, Flemming JM, Lotze HK, Overestimating fish counts by non-instantaneous visual censuses: Consequences for population and community descriptions, PLoS One. e11722 (2010). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011722 20661304

4. Kulbicki M (1998). How the acquired behaviour of commercial reef fishes may influence the results obtained from visual censuses. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 222, 11–30. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(97)00133-0

5. Lindfield SJ, Harvey ES, McIlwain J. L., and Halford A. R. (2014). Silent fish surveys: bubble-free diving highlights inaccuracies associated with SCUBA-based surveys in heavily fished areas. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1061–1069. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12262

6. Gemba KL, Nosal EMT, Reed R., Partial dereverberation used to characterize open circuit scuba diver signatures, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136 (2014) 623–633. doi: 10.1121/1.4884879 25096097

7. Radford C, Jeffs AG, Tindle C.T., Cole R.G., Montgomery J.C., Bubbled waters: The noise generated by underwater breathing apparatus, Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 38 (2005) 259–267. doi: 10.1080/10236240500333908

8. Brock VE, A Preliminary Report on a Method of Estimating Reef Fish Populations, The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1954), pp. 297–308 Published by : Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable, J. Wildl. Manage. 18 (1954) 297–308.

9. Januchowski-Hartley FA, Graham NA, Feary DA, Morove T, Cinner JE, Fear of fishers: human predation explains behavioral changes in coral reef fishes. PLos One 2011; 6(8): e22761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022761 21853046.

10. Gray AE, Williams ID, Stamoulis KA, Boland RC, Lino KC, Hauk BB, Leonard JC, Rooney JJ, Asher JM, Lopes KH, Kosaki RK, Comparison of Reef Fish Survey Data Gathered by Open and Closed Circuit SCUBA Divers Reveals Differences in Areas With Higher Fishing Pressure, PLoS One. 11 (2016) e0167724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167724 27936044

11. Cole R.G, Syms C, Davey N.K., Gust N., Notman P., Stewart R., Radford C.A., Carbines G, Carr M.H., Jeffs A.G., Does breathing apparatus affect fish counts and observations? A comparison at three New Zealand fished and protected areas, 2007 Mar. Biol. 150 1379–1395. doi: 10.1007/s00227-006-0420-3

12. Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, cited (9/27/2018), website: https://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/new-about/

13. Parrish FA, Boland RC, Habitat and reef-fish assemblages of banks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Marine Biology 2004, 144, 1065–1073. doi: 10.1007/s00227-003-1288-0

14. Parrish FA, Identifying Diurnal Foraging Habitat of Endangered Hawaiian Monk Seals using a Seal-Mounted Video Camera, 2000. Marine Mammal Science, 16, 392–412.

15. Pyle RL, Learner A, Guide To Closed-Circuit Rebreather Operations, Forum Am. Bar Assoc. (1996) 1–30.

16. Heenan A, Williams ID, Acoba T, DesRochers A, Kosaki RK, Kanemura T, Brainard RE. Long-term monitoring of coral reef fish assemblages in the Western central pacific. 2017, Scientific Data, 4, 170176. http://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.176 29206219

17. Kulbicki M, Guillemot N., Amand M., A general approach to length-width relationships for New Caledonian lagoon fishes. Cybium. 2005; 29(3): 235–52

18. Froese R, Pauly D. Fishbase. World Wide Web electronic publication. 2017. www.fishbase.org.

19. R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2013). ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/.

20. Canty A, Ripley, boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package version 1.3–20. Davison, A. C. & Hinkley, D. V. (2017) Bootstrap Methods and Their Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-57391-2

21. Green SJ, Akins JL, Maljković A, Côté IM. Invasive Lionfish Drive Atlantic Coral Reef Fish Declines. 2012. PLoS ONE 7(3): e32596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032596 22412895

22. Graham NAJ, McClanahan TR, MacNeil MA, Wilson SK, Polunin NVC, Jennings S, et al. Climate Warming, Marine Protected Areas and the Ocean-Scale Integrity of Coral Reef Ecosystems. 2008 PLoS ONE 3(8): e3039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003039 18728776

23. Wickham H., ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016.

24. Cinner JE, Maire E, Huchery C, MacNeil MA, Graham NAJ, Mora C, et al. Gravity of human impacts mediates coral reef conservation gains. 2018. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, E6116–E6125. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708001115 29915066

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12
Nejčtenější tento týden