Using baited remote underwater videos (BRUVs) to characterize chondrichthyan communities in a global biodiversity hotspot

English version

Autoři: Geoffrey J. Osgood ^aff001; Meaghen E. McCord ^aff002; Julia K. Baum ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada ^aff001; South African Shark Conservancy (SASC), Hermanus, Western Cape, South Africa ^aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225859

Souhrn

Threatened chondrichthyan diversity is high in developing countries where scarce resources, limited data, and minimal stakeholder support often render conservation efforts challenging. As such, data on many species, including many evolutionarily distinct endemics, is poor in these countries and their conservation status and habitat needs remain uncertain. Here, we used baited remote underwater videos (BRUVs; n = 419) conducted at 167 sites over two years to assess the frequency of occurrence (FO), relative abundance, diversity, and structure of chondrichthyan assemblages in one of the world’s chondrichthyan biodiversity and endemism hotspots, South Africa. We compared chondrichthyan assemblages across three habitat types, and between unprotected and protected areas (a small marine protected area [MPA] and a larger, seasonal whale sanctuary). Although in total we observed 18 chondrichthyan species (11 families), over half of all observations were of just two species from the same family of mesopredatory endemic catsharks; only 8.8% were larger shark species. These mesopredatory species do not appear to be threatened, but some skates and larger shark species, including some endemics, were much rarer. Overall chondrichthyan FO was high (81% of all BRUVs); FO was higher in kelp (100% of BRUVS) and reef (93%) sites than at sites in sandy habitat (63%), which had a distinct chondrichthyan community. Independent of habitat, the chondrichthyan community did not relate strongly to protection. Because sites with kelp and reef habitat were rare in the whale sanctuary, this protected area had a lower chondrichthyan FO (67% of BRUVs) than either unprotected sites (81%) or those in the small MPA (98%), as well as having lower chondrichthyan relative abundance and species richness. Our study provides evidence of the importance of distinct habitat types to different chondrichthyan species, and suggests that even small MPAs can protect critical habitats, such that they may provide safe refuge for endemic species as anthropogenic pressures increase.

Klíčová slova:

Species diversity – Reefs – Habitats – Chondrichthyes – Sharks – Conservation science – Seaweed – Whales

Zdroje

1. Dulvy NK, Fowler SL, Musick JA, Cavanagh RD, Kyne PM, Harrison LR, et al. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife. 2014;3: e00590. doi: 10.7554/eLife.00590 24448405

2. García VB, Lucifora LO, Myers RA. The importance of habitat and life history to extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol]. 2008;275: 83–89.

3. Worm B, Davis B, Kettemer L, Ward-Paige CA, Chapman D, Heithaus MR, et al. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar Policy. 2013;40: 194–204.

4. Shiffman DS, Hammerschlag N. Shark conservation and management policy: a review and primer for non-specialists. Anim Conserv. 2016;19: 401–412.

5. Bond ME, Valentin-Albanese J, Babcock EA, Abercrombie D, Lamb NF, Miranda A, et al. Abundance and size structure of a reef shark population within a marine reserve has remained stable for more than a decade. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2017;576: 1–10.

6. Speed CW, Cappo M, Meekan MG. Evidence for rapid recovery of shark populations within a coral reef marine protected area. Biol Conserv. 2018;220: 308–319.

7. Goetze JS, Fullwood L. Fiji’s largest marine reserve benefits reef sharks. Coral Reefs. 2013;32: 121–125.

8. Dulvy NK, Simpfendorfer CA, Davidson LNK, Fordham SV, Bräutigam A, Sant G, et al. Challenges and priorities in shark and ray conservation. Curr Biol. 2017;27: R565–R572. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.038 28586694

9. Davidson LNK, Dulvy NK. Global marine protected areas to prevent extinctions. Nat Ecol & Evol. 2017;1: 0040.

10. Bräutigam A, Callow M, Campbell IR, Camhi MD, Cornish AS, Dulvy NK, et al. Global priorities for conserving sharks and rays: A 2015–2025 strategy. Global Sharks and Rays Initiative; 2015.

11. Sobel J, Dahlgren C. Marine reserves: A guide to science, design, and use. Island Press; 2004.

12. Espinoza M, Cappo M, Heupel MR, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA. Quantifying shark distribution patterns and species-habitat associations: implications of marine park zoning. PLOS One. 2014;9: e106885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106885 25207545

13. Speed CW, Meekan MG, Field IC, McMahon CR, Harcourt RG, Stevens JD, et al. Reef shark movements relative to a coastal marine protected area. Reg Stud Mar Sci. 2016;3: 58–66.

14. Osgood GJ, Baum JK. Reef sharks: recent advances in ecological understanding to inform conservation. J Fish Biol. 2015;87: 1489–1523. doi: 10.1111/jfb.12839 26709218

15. Sale PF, Cowen RK, Danilowicz BS, Jones GP, Kritzer JP, Lindeman KC, et al. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20: 74–80 doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.11.007 16701346

16. Agardy T, di Sciara GN, Christie P. Mind the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Mar Policy. 2011;35: 226–232.

17. Ebert DA, van Hees KE. Beyond Jaws: rediscovering the “lost sharks” of southern Africa. Afr J Mar Sci. 2015;37: 141–156.

18. Sink K, Holness S, Harris L, Majiedt P, Atkinson L, Robinson T, et al. 2012. National biodiversity assessment 2011: Technical Report. Vol. 4: Marine and coastal component. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.

19. Mead A, Griffiths CL, Branch GM, McQuaid CD, Blamey LK, Bolton JJ, et al. Human-mediated drivers of change—impacts on coastal ecosystems and marine biota of South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci. 2013;35: 403–425.

20. da Silva C, Booth AJ, Dudley S, Kerwath SE, Lamberth SJ, Leslie RW, et al. The current status and management of South Africa’s chondrichthyan fisheries. Afr J Mar Sci. 2015;37: 233–248.

21. Attwood CG, Mann BQ, Beaumont J, Harris JM. Review of the state of marine protected areas in South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci. 1997;18: 341–368.

22. Solano-Fernández S, Attwood CG, Chalmers R, Clark BM, Cowley PD, Fairweather T, et al. Assessment of the effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas at representing ichthyofaunal communities. Environ Conserv. 2012;39: 259–270.

23. Sowman M, Sunde J. Social impacts of marine protected areas in South Africa on coastal fishing communities. Ocean Coast Manag. 2018;157: 168–179.

24. da Silva C, Kerwath SE, Attwood CG, Thorstad EB, Cowley PD, Økland F, et al. Quantifying the degree of protection afforded by a no-take marine reserve on an exploited shark. Afr J Mar Sci. 2013;35: 57–66.

25. De Vos L, Götz A, Winker H, Attwood CG. Optimal BRUVs (baited remote underwater video system) survey design for reef fish monitoring in the Stilbaai Marine Protected Area. Afr J Mar Sci. 2014;36: 1–10.

26. du Toit J, Attwood C. The Bettys Bay Marine Protected Area management plan. South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2009.

27. Roberson L, Winker H, Attwood C, de Vos L, Sanguinetti C, Götz A. First survey of fishes in the Betty’s Bay Marine Protected Area along South Africa's temperate south-west coast. Afr J Mar Sci. 2015;37: 543–556.

28. Attwood CG, Farquhar M. Collapse of linefish stocks between cape hangklip and Walker Bay, South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science. 1999;21: 415–432.

29. Moloney CL, Fennessy ST, Gibbons MJ, Roychoudhury A, Shillington FA, von der Heyden BP, et al. Reviewing evidence of marine ecosystem change off South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci. 2013;35: 427–448.

30. Human B. Haploblepharus edwardsii. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T39345A10211065 [Internet]. 2009 [cited 1 Oct 2019]. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T39345A10211065.en

31. Mallet D, Pelletier D. Underwater video techniques for observing coastal marine biodiversity: A review of sixty years of publications (1952–2012). Fish Res. 2014;154: 44–62.

32. Cappo M, Speare P, De’ath G. Comparison of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) and prawn (shrimp) trawls for assessments of fish biodiversity in inter-reefal areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2004;302: 123–152.

33. De'ath G. mvpart: Multivariate partitioning. R package version 1.6–2. 2014. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvpart.

34. Hui FKC. boral—Bayesian Ordination and Regression Analysis of Multivariate Abundance Data in R. Poisot T, editor. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7: 744–750.

35. Warton DI, Wright ST, Wang Y. Distance-based multivariate analyses confound location and dispersion effects. Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3: 89–101.

36. Dray S, Bauman D, Blanchet G, Borchard D, Clappe S, Guenard G et al. adespatial: Multivariate Multiscale Spatial Analysis. R package version 0.2–0. 2018. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=adespatial.

37. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, et al. vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5–5. 2013. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.

38. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2018. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.

39. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder MN, et al. AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw. 2012;27: 233–249.

40. Roberts DW. labdsv: Ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology. R package version 1.8–0. 2016. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=labdsv.

41. Heupel MR, Knip DM, Simpfendorfer CA, Dulvy NK. Sizing up the ecological role of sharks as predators. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014;495: 291–298.

42. Roff G, Doropoulos C, Rogers A, Bozec Y-M, Krueck NC, Aurellado E, et al. The Ecological role of sharks on coral reefs. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31: 395–407. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.014 26975420

43. Dulvy NK, Reynolds JD. Predicting extinction vulnerability in skates. Conserv Biol. 2002;16: 440–450.

44. Smale MJ. Raja straeleni. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T161586A5458059. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 5 Oct 2019]. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T161586A5458059.en

45. Brooks EJ, Sloman KA, Sims DW, Danylchuk AJ. Validating the use of baited remote underwater video surveys for assessing the diversity, distribution and abundance of sharks in the Bahamas. Endanger Species Res. 2011;13: 231–243.

46. De Vos L, Watson RGA, Götz A, Attwood CG. Baited remote underwater video system (BRUVs) survey of chondrichthyan diversity in False Bay, South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci. 2015;37: 209–218.

47. Harasti D, Lee KA, Laird R, Bradford R, Bruce B. Use of stereo baited remote underwater video systems to estimate the presence and size of white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias). Mar Freshwater Res. 2016; 68: 1391–1396.

48. Compagno LJV. Triakis megalopterus. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T39362A10216379. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 6 Oct 2019]. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T39362A10216379.en

49. Bond ME, Babcock EA, Pikitch EK, Abercrombie DL, Lamb NF, Chapman DD. Reef sharks exhibit site-fidelity and higher relative abundance in marine reserves on the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. PLoS One. 2012;7: e32983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032983 22412965

50. Goetze JS, Langlois TJ, McCarter J, Simpfendorfer CA, Hughes A, Leve JT, et al. Drivers of reef shark abundance and biomass in the Solomon Islands. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0200960. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200960 30059525

51. Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa. Draft notice declaring the Betty’s Bay Marine Protected Area under Section 22A of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003) [Internet]. Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa; 2017. Report No.: 40996. Available: https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/gazetted_notices/draftnoticeandregulations_declaringbettysbay_robbergandgoukamma_mpas_gn40996_0.pdf.

52. Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA. Evaluating marine protected areas for the conservation of tropical coastal sharks. Biol Conserv. 2012;148: 200–209.

53. Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA. Using Acoustic Monitoring to Evaluate MPAs for Shark Nursery Areas: The Importance of Long-term Data. Mar Technol Soc J. 2005;39: 10–18.

54. Jaiteh VF, Lindfield SJ, Mangubhai S, Warren C, Fitzpatrick B, Loneragan NR. Higher abundance of marine predators and changes in fishers’ behavior following spatial protection within the world's biggest shark fishery. Front Mar Sci. 2016;3: 43.

55. Department of Environmental Affairs. Cabinet approves a representative network of Marine Protected Areas in the South African exclusive zone [Internet]. [cited 27 Jun 2019]. Available: https://www.environment.gov.za/mediarelease/cabinetapproves_representativenetworkofMPAs.

56. Kerwath SE, Winker H, Götz A, Attwood CG. Marine protected area improves yield without disadvantaging fishers. Nat Commun. 2013;4: 2347. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3347 23962973

Using baited remote underwater videos (BRUVs) to characterize chondrichthyan communities in a global biodiversity hotspot

Souhrn

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

Aktuální možnosti diagnostiky a léčby litiáz