生物多样性

• • 上一篇    下一篇

诱饵式远程水下视频技术在近岸礁栖鱼类多样性监测中的应用

丁仲文1, 陈奕廷1, 余文1, 张晶晶1, 黄亿彬2, 李丁科2, 彭昭杰1, 赖瀚1, 魏世超1, 黄明攀1*   

  1. 1.南方海洋科学与工程广东省实验室(广州) 广州 511458; 2. 广东南澎列岛海洋生态国家级自然保护区管理局 汕头 515000
  • 收稿日期:2024-12-19 修回日期:2025-04-26 接受日期:2025-05-29
  • 通讯作者: 黄明攀

Application of Baited Remote Underwater Video Technology in Assessing Nearshore Reef Fish Diversity

Zhongwen Ding1, Yitin Chen1, Wen Yu1, Jingjing Zhang1, Yibin Huang2, Dingke Li2, Zhaojie Peng1, Han Lai1, Shichao Wei1, Mingpan Huang1*   

  1. 1. Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou), Guangzhou 511458; 

    2. Administration of National Nature Reserve for Marine Ecology of Guangdong Nanpeng Islands, Shantou 515000

  • Received:2024-12-19 Revised:2025-04-26 Accepted:2025-05-29
  • Contact: Mingpan Huang

摘要: 诱饵式远程水下视频监测技术(BRUV)因其操作简便、成本较低、适用范围广等优点逐渐成为一种新的珊瑚礁鱼类监测方法。然而,BRUV技术在我国礁栖鱼类群落监测中的应用效果仍缺乏研究。本研究通过在南澎列岛开展BRUV监测和水下目视调查(UVC)的对比实验,以评估BRUV技术在珊瑚礁鱼类监测中的优势和不足。结果表明,在50-60分钟同等时长的监测中,BRUV与UVC记录到的总物种数大致相当(59种vs 61种),而功能丰富度则略高(0.987 vs 0.783)。与UVC相比,BRUV记录到的礁栖鱼类更倾向于体型较大、活动能力强、集群性的上层掠食者,而在底栖性、隐秘性较强的礁栖鱼类监测方面相对不足。本研究结果表明,BRUV与UVC在监测效果上具有显著互补性:UVC更适用于珊瑚覆盖度较高的岛礁,而BRUV则在岩礁鱼类多样性监测中表现更为突出。在实际应用中,应结合使用这两种方法,以更全面、准确地揭示礁栖鱼类多样性。

关键词: 诱饵式远程水下视频监测, 水下目视调查, 南澎列岛, 礁栖鱼类, 物种组成, 功能结构

Abstract

Aims: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) technique in monitoring nearshore reef fish communities in the Nanpeng Archipelago, China, and to compare its performance with the traditional Underwater Visual Census (UVC) method. The focus is on assessing both techniques in terms of species diversity, composition, and their ability to capture different ecological groups of reef fish. 

Methods: Simultaneous BRUV and UVC surveys were carried out at four coral reef sites. Each BRUV unit, baited with 2 kg of chopped clupeoid fish (Clupea sp), was deployed until the camera was out of battery. UVC surveys were done by divers recording fish species and abundances along transects. Functional diversity was assessed using traits such as body size, trophic level, mobility, gregariousness, water column, and diet. 

Results: BRUV and UVC recorded a similar number of species (59 for BRUV vs. 61 for UVC), but BRUV exhibited a higher functional richness index (0.987 vs. 0.783). Functional trait analysis showed that BRUV was more effective at capturing large-bodied, highly mobile, schooling predators such as Caranx sexfasciatus, whereas UVC detected a higher number of cryptic reef-associated species. Analysis of species accumulation curves indicated an optimal BRUV deployment duration of 50-60 minutes, beyond which additional sampling time yielded diminishing returns in species detection. 

Conclusions: Both BRUV and UVC have distinct strengths and limitations in monitoring reef fish communities. Our findings demonstrate that BRUV and UVC exhibit distinct yet complementary monitoring efficiencies: UVC is more effective for monitoring fish communities in coral-rich reefs, while BRUV performs better in monitoring rocky reef fish diversity. In practical applications, a combination of both methods would provide a more comprehensive understanding of reef fish diversity and ecological function.

Key words: Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV), Underwater Visual Census (UVC), Nanpeng Archipelago, reef fish, species composition, functional structure