Open Access“How” and “what” matters: Sampling method affects biodiversity estimates of reef fishes
Author(s) -
Bosch Néstor E.,
Gonçalves Jorge M. S.,
Erzini Karim,
Tuya Fernando
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
ecology and evolution
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.17
H-Index - 63
ISSN - 2045-7758
DOI - 10.1002/ece3.2979
Subject(s) - sampling (signal processing) , biodiversity , complementarity (molecular biology) , reef , fish <actinopterygii> , underwater , ecology , environmental science , global biodiversity , geography , fishery , environmental resource management , computer science , biology , genetics , archaeology , filter (signal processing) , computer vision
Understanding changes in biodiversity requires the implementation of monitoring programs encompassing different dimensions of biodiversity through varying sampling techniques. In this work, fish assemblages associated with the “outer” and “inner” sides of four marinas, two at the Canary Islands and two at southern Portugal, were investigated using three complementary sampling techniques: underwater visual censuses ( UVC s), baited cameras ( BC s), and fish traps ( FT s). We firstly investigated the complementarity of these sampling methods to describe species composition. Then, we investigated differences in taxonomic ( TD ), phylogenetic ( PD ) and functional diversity ( FD ) between sides of the marinas according to each sampling method. Finally, we explored the applicability/reproducibility of each sampling technique to characterize fish assemblages according to these metrics of diversity. UVC s and BC s provided complementary information, in terms of the number and abundances of species, while FT s sampled a particular assemblage. Patterns of TD , PD , and FD between sides of the marinas varied depending on the sampling method. UVC was the most cost‐efficient technique, in terms of personnel hours, and it is recommended for local studies. However, for large‐scale studies, BC s are recommended, as it covers greater spatio‐temporal scales by a lower cost. Our study highlights the need to implement complementary sampling techniques to monitor ecological change, at various dimensions of biodiversity. The results presented here will be useful for optimizing future monitoring programs.