Short Period Baited Remote Underwater Video as a cost-benefit tool to evaluate effectiveness of Marine No-take Zones

Tomasi, Marcos F; Waters, Linda G; Cruz, Igor C. S; Güth, Arthur Z; Turra, Alexander

doi:10.1590/2675-2824070.21058mft

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Ocean and Coastal Research

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Ocean Coast. Res. 70 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2675-2824070.21058mft copy

Short Period Baited Remote Underwater Video as a cost-benefit tool to evaluate effectiveness of Marine No-take Zones

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Evaluating effectiveness of marine No-take Zones (NTZ) can be cost or labor prohibitive, thus comparisons to nearby unprotected areas are typically lacking. Two NTZs were evaluated, the waters surrounding Ilha Anchieta State Park and Palmas Island in Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil, for species richness, diversity, and abundance of ichthyofauna, comparing them with two nearby unprotected “Take” Zones. From 23 deployments using Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV), 737 individuals from 51 species of fish were recorded. The NTZ community composition was significantly different from Take Zones, with higher average species richness, abundance, and diversity but similar evenness. Seven species, accounting for more than 72% of the composition differences between Take and NTZs, were more abundant in NTZs. Comparisons of individual sites within each zone showed high variability for the Mar Virado Take Zone, with one site grouped with NTZs at 30% similarity. In parallel, BRUV deployed over a short period was assessed as a potential rapid, low-cost method for analyzing the effectiveness of a marine protected area, important for management of sites in low- and middle-income countries with patchy resource availability. BRUV distinguished significant community structure differences between Take and NTZs, with no difference between sites within each classification. Comparing with BRUV conducted for a longer period at two of the four study sites (MV and PA), our rapid study recorded 44.3% of total species using 28% of the survey effort. Compared with a multi-method survey as a proxy for a record of all potential species present at a third site (AI), BRUV recorded 30% of total species using 4.2% of the survey effort. BRUV showed bias towards size classes >15cm and certain feeding strategies, important to note if assessing a single target species. Overall, this rapid implementation of BRUV showed a clear difference between sites that differed in fishing protection level.

Descriptors:
BRUV; Fishing management; Low-cost assessment; Marine protected area; NTZ management

Source	df	SS	MS	Pseudo-F	p (MC)
Z	1	11188	11188	3.41	0.03*
Si[Z]	2	6553.3	3276.6	1.20	0.28
Res	18	49094	2727.4
Total	21	66164

Protection status	Site	Sample	Latitude (S)	Longitude (W)	Depth (m)	Secchi Depth (m)	Species richness (S)	n	Pielou's evenness (J')	Shannon's diversity (H')
Take	MV	1	23°33'47.9''	45°09'8.8''	8.8	8.8	10	33	0.76	1.76
		2	23°33'40''	45°09'16.4''	6.5	6.5	8	10	0.97	2.03
		3	23°33'35''	45°09'26.9''	6.0	4.5	2	23	0.26	0.18
		4	23°33'40''	45°09'31''	5.0	4	6	19	0.69	1.23
		5	23°33'47.1''	45°09'35.9''	5.0	4	2	4	0.81	0.56
		6	23°33'49.7''	45°09'39.2''	6.0	4	1	1	-	-
	PE	1	23°31'02.7''	45°04'49.6''	7.0	5	1	4	-	-
		2	23°31'14.1''	45°04'53.5''	6.7	4.5	2	2	1.00	0.69
		3	23°30'29.2''	45°04'40.5''	5.5	4.5	1	10	-	-
		4	23°30'25.9''	45°04'36.5''	7.0	5	4	12	0.71	0.98
		5	23°31'02.2''	45°05'01.9''	5.0	5	2	2	1.00	0.69
		6^†	23°31'0.6''	45°05'06.4''	7	5	-	0	-	-
No-take	AI	1	23°31'38.2''	45°03'34.9''	5.7	4	6	81	0.31	0.55
		2	23°31'36.4''	45°03'30''	6.7	6	18	44	0.89	2.58
		3	23°31'41.4''	45°04'41.3''	5.5	5.5	2	2	1.00	0.69
		4	23°31'42.8''	45°04'33.3''	6.0	6	14	46	0.86	2.28
		5	23°31'39.6''	45°03'24.9''	8.2	8	19	42	0.87	2.57
		6	23°31'40.3''	45°03'16.5''	7.0	7	14	44	0.87	2.30
	PI	1	23°32'39.7''	45°01'38''	6.0	6.5	5	86	0.30	0.48
		2	23°32'43.4''	45°01'41.2''	6.4	6.4	11	47	0.55	1.31
		3	23°32'45.7''	45°01'47.7''	11.0	10	13	49	0.85	2.18
		4	23°32'47''	45°01'52.6''	8.0	8	15	87	0.68	1.84
		5	23°32'48.9''	45°01'56.2''	8.0	8	15	89	0.75	2.03
		6^‡	23°32'50.6''	45°01'58.2''	10	10	-	-	-	-

Ecological index	Source	df	Mean Square	F	p
S	Z	1	7.10	19.92	<0.01*
S	Si [Z]	2	0.39	1.12	0.34
n	Z	1	17.14	20.45	<0.01*
n	Si [Z]	2	1.42	1.69	0.21
H’	Z	1	1.24	8.56	<0.01*
H’	Si [Z]	2	0.08	0.59	0.55
J’	Z	1	0.01	0.52	0.48
J’	Si [Z]	2	0.02	1.27	0.30

Species	Average abundance		Dissimilarity
	Take	No-take	Average	Diss/SD	Contribution
	Take	No-take	Average	Diss/SD	%	Cumulative %
Caranx latus	1.78	2.88	11.06	0.77	13.41	13.41
Haemulon aurolineatum	0.56	2.87	9.70	1.29	11.75	25.17
Abudefduf saxatalis	0.18	1.89	6.21	1.09	7.53	32.70
Epinephelus marginatus	0.09	1.32	4.50	1.80	5.46	38.16
Mugil curema	0.41	0.80	4.07	0.72	4.93	43.09
Kyphosus spp.	0	1.08	3.92	1.19	4.75	47.84
Holocentrus adscensionis	0	1.15	3.81	0.97	4.62	52.46
Pomacanthus paru	0	0.75	2.77	0.97	3.36	55.82
Chaetodon striatus	0.09	0.79	2.63	1.17	3.18	59.00
Diplodus argenteus	0.09	0.62	2.43	0.74	2.95	61.95
Acanthurus bahianus	0	0.69	2.16	0.67	2.62	64.57
Balistes capriscus	0.18	0.18	2.10	0.42	2.55	67.12
Bodianus rufus	0	0.55	1.85	1.04	2.25	69.37
Anisotremus virginicus	0.09	0.44	1.82	0.71	2.20	71.57
Halichoeres poeyi	0.22	0.31	1.54	0.68	1.87	73.43
Chromis multilineata	0.09	0.39	1.37	0.48	1.66	75.09
Priacanthus arenatus	0	0.40	1.22	0.56	1.48	76.57
Chloroscombrus chrysurus	0.18	0	1.07	0.33	1.30	77.87
Lutjanus analis	0	0.27	0.95	0.60	1.15	79.02
Gymnothorax funebris	0	0.27	0.92	0.60	1.11	80.13
Stegastes variabilis	0.30	0	0.88	0.30	1.07	81.20
Chaetodipterus faber	0	0.27	0.85	0.60	1.03	82.23
Sparisoma axillare	0	0.27	0.85	0.60	1.03	83.26
Haelmulon plumierii	0	0.26	0.83	0.47	1.01	84.27
Caranx bartholomaei	0	0.18	0.82	0.31	1.00	85.26
Selene vomer	0.09	0.09	0.78	0.40	0.95	86.21
Pseudupeneus maculatus	0	0.22	0.75	0.46	0.91	87.12
Haemulon parra	0.09	0.09	0.74	0.41	0.90	88.01
Anisotremus surinamensis	0	0.18	0.70	0.46	0.85	88.87
Sparisoma amplum	0	0.18	0.65	0.46	0.79	89.66
Odontoscion dentex	0.13	0.09	0.63	0.43	0.76	90.42
Halichoeres radiatus	0	0.18	0.62	0.46	0.76	91.18
Diplodus holbrookii	0.18	0	0.61	0.42	0.74	91.92
Caranx crysos	0.13	0	0.56	0.27	0.68	92.60
Caranx hyppos	0	0.16	0.51	0.31	0.62	93.22
Sphyraena guachancho	0	0.13	0.47	0.31	0.56	93.78
Lagocephalus laevigatus	0	0.09	0.46	0.31	0.56	94.34
Seriola dumerili	0	0.09	0.41	0.31	0.50	94.84
Lutjanus synagris	0	0.09	0.41	0.31	0.50	95.34
Ogcocephalus sp.	0	0.09	0.41	0.31	0.50	95.84
Gymnura micrura	0.09	0	0.41	0.26	0.50	96.33
Scomberomorus sp.	0.09	0	0.40	0.27	0.48	96.81
Haemulon album	0.09	0	0.35	0.28	0.42	97.23
Calamus penna	0.09	0	0.34	0.28	0.41	97.64
Haemulon carbonarium	0	0.09	0.29	0.31	0.36	98.00
Sparisoma sp.	0	0.09	0.29	0.31	0.36	98.36
Aluterus sp.	0	0.09	0.29	0.31	0.36	98.71
Halichoeres cyanocephalus	0	0.09	0.27	0.31	0.33	99.04
Stegastes fuscus	0	0.09	0.27	0.31	0.33	99.37
Sphoeroides spengleri	0.09	0	0.27	0.30	0.32	99.69
Scarus zelindae	0	0.09	0.26	0.31	0.31	100

Species unique to BRUV	Feeding Strategy	Size Class cm
Pomacentridae (fam.)	Roving herbivore	<15
Caranx hippos	Carnivore	>30
Selene vomer	Carnivore	>30
Lagocephalus laevigatus	Carnivore	>30
Balistes capriscus	Mobile invertebrate feeder	>30
Halichoeres radiatus	Mobile invertebrate feeder	>30
Sphyraena guachancho	Piscivore	>30
Sparisoma amplum	Roving herbivore	>30
Sparisoma axillare	Roving herbivore	>30

Instituto Oceanográfico da Universidade de São Paulo Praça do Oceanográfico 191, CEP: 05508-120, São Paulo, SP - Brasil, Tel.: (11) 3091-6501 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: diretoria.io@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: lindagwen@gmail.com