Microhabitat and shrimp abundance within a Norwegian cold-water coral ecosystem

Purser, Autun; Ontrup, Jörg; Schoening, Timm; Thomsen, Laurenz; Tong, Ruiju; Unnithan, Vikram; Nattkemper, Tim Wilhelm

doi:10.5194/bg-10-5779-2013

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This call has been answered by promising achievements in algorithmic annotation, such as automated classification of seabeds and habitats (Pican et al, 1998;Pizarro et al, 2009), coral segmentation (Purser et al, 2009;Tusa et al, 2014), and classification (Beijbom et al, 2012(Beijbom et al, , 2015, detection, and spatial analysis of shrimp populations (Purser et al, 2013;Osterloff et al, 2016), detection and classification of mega fauna in benthic images (Schoening et al, 2012b;Schoening et al, under review) or the computation of image footprint size with automatically detected laser points (Schoening et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RecoMIA—Recommendations for Marine Image Annotation: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine imaging is transforming into a sensor technology applied for high throughput sampling. In the context of habitat mapping, imaging establishes thereby an important bridge technology regarding the spatial resolution and information content between physical sampling gear (e.g., box corer, multi corer) on the one end and hydro-acoustic sensors on the other end of the spectrum of sampling methods. In contrast to other scientific imaging domains, such as digital pathology, there are no protocols and reports available that guide users (often referred to as observers) in the non-trivial process of assigning semantic categories to whole images, regions, or objects of interest (OOI), which is referred to as annotation. These protocols are crucial to facilitate image analysis as a robust scientific method. In this article we will review the past observations in manual Marine Image Annotations (MIA) and provide (a) a guideline for collecting manual annotations, (b) definitions for annotation quality, and (c) a statistical framework to analyze the performance of human expert annotations and to compare those to computational approaches.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RecoMIA—Recommendations for Marine Image Annotation: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compared to warm, shallow-water reefs, corals at Faxe grew probably slower, likely yielding less food for mucus-feeding decapods and fewer places to hide. Additionally, less coral rubble is produced for these crustaceans to use as a habitat (decapods can also be common in this coral-derived habitat: [ 34 , 36 , 39 , 69 ]). The results further imply that the decapod biodiversity differences between deep, cold-water reefs and tropical reefs evolved at least ~63 million years ago, the age of the Faxe deposits [ 60 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although sampling may not have been exhaustive, species richness is typically < 30 inside or very near to deep-water (200+ m) coral patches, whereas > 30 species are usually found in modern tropical coral reefs (Table 1 ). The coral framework and the sediments surrounding deep-water corals serve for feeding purposes and as a shelter [ 17 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 39 ]. Some reports mention that the coral framework contains fewer specimens and species than nearby areas [ 35 , 36 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of body size, vision, and biodiversity of coral-associated organisms: evidence from fossil crustaceans in cold-water coral and tropical coral ecosystems

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundModern cold-water coral and tropical coral environments harbor a highly diverse and ecologically important macrofauna of crustaceans that face elevated extinction risks due to reef decline. The effect of environmental conditions acting on decapod crustaceans comparing these two habitats is poorly understood today and in deep time. Here, we compare the biodiversity, eye socket height as a proxy for eye size, and body size of decapods in fossil cold-water and tropical reefs that formed prior to human disturbance.ResultsWe show that decapod biodiversity is higher in fossil tropical reefs from The Netherlands, Italy, and Spain compared to that of the exceptionally well-preserved Paleocene (Danian) cold-water reef/mound ecosystem from Faxe (Denmark), where decapod diversity is highest in a more heterogeneous, mixed bryozoan-coral habitat instead of in coral and bryozoan-dominated facies. The relatively low diversity at Faxe was not influenced substantially by the preceding Cretaceous/Paleogene extinction event that is not apparent in the standing diversity of decapods in our analyses, or by sampling, preservation, and/or a latitudinal diversity gradient. Instead, the lower availability of food and fewer hiding places for decapods may explain this low diversity. Furthermore, decapods from Faxe are larger than those from tropical waters for half of the comparisons, which may be caused by a lower number of predators, the delayed maturity, and the increased life span of crustaceans in deeper, colder waters. Finally, deep-water specimens of the benthic crab Caloxanthus from Faxe exhibit a larger eye socket size compared to congeneric specimens from tropical reefs, suggesting that dim light conditions favored the evolution of relatively large eyes.ConclusionsThe results suggest a strong habitat control on the biodiversity of crustaceans in coral-associated environments and that the diversity difference between deep, cold-water reefs and tropical reefs evolved at least ~63 million years ago. Futhermore, body size and vision in crustaceans evolved in response to environmental conditions in the deep sea. We highlight the usefulness of ancient reefs to study organismal evolution and ecology.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-016-0694-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…It is likely that some amount of drill cuttings entered between the polyp branches to within the reef structures, unobservable by ROV mounted video cameras. The physical complexity of these reefs offer habitat for small mobile fauna such as crustaceans within the coral branches [ 75 ], the microhabitats within the branches experiencing lower flow velocities than found at the outer fringes of a coral colony. It is likely that the higher flow conditions in the fringe areas, coupled with coral mucus release, ensure the cleanliness of these reef sub-habitat regions—the regions visible to ROV camera rigs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Time Series Study of Lophelia pertusa and Reef Megafauna Responses to Drill Cuttings Exposure on the Norwegian Margin

Purser

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As hotspots of local biodiversity in the deep sea, preservation of cold-water coral reef communities is of great importance. In European waters the most extensive reefs are found at depths of 300 – 500 m on the continental margin. In Norwegian waters many of these reefs are located in areas of interest for oil and gas exploration and production. In this study drilling was carried out in the Morvin drill field in proximity to a number of small Lophelia pertusa coral reefs (closest reefs 100 m upstream and 350 m downstream of point of waste drill material release). In a novel monitoring study, ROV video surveys of 9 reefs were conducted prior, during, immediately after and >1 year after drilling operations. Behavior of coral polyps inhabiting reefs exposed to differing concentrations of drill cuttings and drilling fluids (waste drilling material) were compared. Levels of expected exposure to these waste materials were determined for each reef by modelling drill cutting transport following release, using accurate in-situ hydrodynamic data collected during the drilling period and drill cutting discharge data as parameters of a dispersal model. The presence / absence of associate reef species (Acesta excavata, Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis) were also determined from each survey video. There were no significant differences in Lophelia pertusa polyp behavior in corals modelled to have been exposed to pulses of >25 ppm drill cutting material and those modelled to be exposed to negligible concentrations of material. From the video data collected, there were no observed degradations of reef structure over time, nor reductions of associate fauna abundance, regardless of modelled exposure concentration at any of the surveyed reefs. This study focused exclusively on adult fauna, and did not assess the potential hazard posed by waste drilling material to coral or other larvae. Video data was collected by various ROV’s, using different camera and lighting setups throughout the survey campaign, making comparison of observations prior, during and post drilling problematic. A standardization of video monitoring in future monitoring campaigns is recommended.

show abstract

Microhabitat and shrimp abundance within a Norwegian cold-water coral ecosystem

Cited by 23 publications

References 78 publications

RecoMIA—Recommendations for Marine Image Annotation: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

RecoMIA—Recommendations for Marine Image Annotation: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Evolution of body size, vision, and biodiversity of coral-associated organisms: evidence from fossil crustaceans in cold-water coral and tropical coral ecosystems

A Time Series Study of Lophelia pertusa and Reef Megafauna Responses to Drill Cuttings Exposure on the Norwegian Margin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About