Loading…

Precision and accuracy of common coral reef sampling protocols revisited with photogrammetry

The rapid decline of coral reefs calls for cost-effective benthic cover data to improve reef health forecasts, policy building, management responses and evaluation. Reef monitoring has been largely based on divers’ observations along transects, and secondarily on quadrat-based protocols, video and p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Marine environmental research 2024-02, Vol.194, p.106304-106304, Article 106304
Main Authors: Carneiro, Ivan M., Sá, João A., Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M., Cardoso, Fernando C., Castro, Guilherme M., Salomon, Paulo S., Bastos, Alex C., Moura, Rodrigo L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-7796e383a8851a54a8939ebb1839a9411337e46572b885e03df1cbea32b7a5143
container_end_page 106304
container_issue
container_start_page 106304
container_title Marine environmental research
container_volume 194
creator Carneiro, Ivan M.
Sá, João A.
Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M.
Cardoso, Fernando C.
Castro, Guilherme M.
Salomon, Paulo S.
Bastos, Alex C.
Moura, Rodrigo L.
description The rapid decline of coral reefs calls for cost-effective benthic cover data to improve reef health forecasts, policy building, management responses and evaluation. Reef monitoring has been largely based on divers’ observations along transects, and secondarily on quadrat-based protocols, video and photographic records. However, the accuracy and precision of the most common sampling approaches are not yet fully understood. Here, we compared benthic cover estimates from three common sampling protocols: Reef Check (RC), Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) and photoquadrats (PQ). The reef cover of two contrasting sites was reconstructed with ∼450 m2 orthomosaics built with high resolution Structure-from-Motion (SfM) photogrammetry, which were used as references for comparisons among protocols. In addition, we explored sample size requirements for each protocol and provided cost-effectiveness comparisons. Our results evidenced between-reef differences in the accuracy and precision of estimates with the different protocols. The three protocols performed similarly in the reef with low macroalgal cover (
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106304
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153572206</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0141113623004324</els_id><sourcerecordid>2905781286</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-7796e383a8851a54a8939ebb1839a9411337e46572b885e03df1cbea32b7a5143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtPwzAQhC0EgvL4C-AjlxSvHSfOESFeUiU4wA3JcpxN6yqJi50W9d_jqsCVk6XxN971DCFXwKbAoLhZTnsTcNgEjFPOuEhqIVh-QCagyipjvIJDMmGQQwYgihNyGuOSMSZLkMfkRCjIuVR8Qj5eA1oXnR-oGRpqrF0HY7fUt9T6vk-y9cF0NCC2NJp-1blhTlfBj976LiZ9k9wjNvTLjQu6WqSLeTB9j2PYnpOj1nQRL37OM_L-cP9295TNXh6f725nmRWSjVlZVgUKJYxSEozMjapEhXUNSlSmytMHRIl5IUteJwKZaFqwNRrB69JIyMUZud6_m_b6XGMcde-ixa4zA_p11AKkSG6eMvoP5VXKSAFXO7Tcozb4GAO2ehVcin2rgeldC3qp_1rQuxb0voXkvPwZsq57bP58v7En4HYPYEpl4zDoaB0OFhuX6hh1492_Q74BS5-dJA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2905781286</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Precision and accuracy of common coral reef sampling protocols revisited with photogrammetry</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Carneiro, Ivan M. ; Sá, João A. ; Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M. ; Cardoso, Fernando C. ; Castro, Guilherme M. ; Salomon, Paulo S. ; Bastos, Alex C. ; Moura, Rodrigo L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Carneiro, Ivan M. ; Sá, João A. ; Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M. ; Cardoso, Fernando C. ; Castro, Guilherme M. ; Salomon, Paulo S. ; Bastos, Alex C. ; Moura, Rodrigo L.</creatorcontrib><description>The rapid decline of coral reefs calls for cost-effective benthic cover data to improve reef health forecasts, policy building, management responses and evaluation. Reef monitoring has been largely based on divers’ observations along transects, and secondarily on quadrat-based protocols, video and photographic records. However, the accuracy and precision of the most common sampling approaches are not yet fully understood. Here, we compared benthic cover estimates from three common sampling protocols: Reef Check (RC), Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) and photoquadrats (PQ). The reef cover of two contrasting sites was reconstructed with ∼450 m2 orthomosaics built with high resolution Structure-from-Motion (SfM) photogrammetry, which were used as references for comparisons among protocols. In addition, we explored sample size requirements for each protocol and provided cost-effectiveness comparisons. Our results evidenced between-reef differences in the accuracy and precision of estimates with the different protocols. The three protocols performed similarly in the reef with low macroalgal cover (&lt;0.5%), but PQ were more accurate and precise in the reef with relatively high (∼20%) macroalgal cover. The sample size for estimating coral cover with a 20% error margin and a 0.05 significance level was lower for PQ, followed by AGRRA and RC. Considering performance, cost surrogates and equipment needs, cost-effectiveness was higher for PQ. We also discuss costs, limitations and advantages/disadvantages of SfM photogrammetry as a sampling approach for coral reef monitoring. •Accuracy and precision of benthic cover estimates were context-dependent.•Considering performance and costs, photoquadrats were the most cost-effective.•Sample size for estimating coral cover considerably lower for photoquadrats.•Orthomosaics are promising for next-generation coral reef monitoring programs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0141-1136</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0291</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106304</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38142582</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>AGRRA ; Animals ; Anthozoa ; Coral Reefs ; corals ; cost effectiveness ; issues and policy ; macroalgae ; Orthomosaics ; Photogrammetry ; Photoquadrats ; protocols ; Reef Check ; sample size ; Sampling</subject><ispartof>Marine environmental research, 2024-02, Vol.194, p.106304-106304, Article 106304</ispartof><rights>2023</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-7796e383a8851a54a8939ebb1839a9411337e46572b885e03df1cbea32b7a5143</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5597-6196</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38142582$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carneiro, Ivan M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sá, João A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cardoso, Fernando C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castro, Guilherme M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salomon, Paulo S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bastos, Alex C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moura, Rodrigo L.</creatorcontrib><title>Precision and accuracy of common coral reef sampling protocols revisited with photogrammetry</title><title>Marine environmental research</title><addtitle>Mar Environ Res</addtitle><description>The rapid decline of coral reefs calls for cost-effective benthic cover data to improve reef health forecasts, policy building, management responses and evaluation. Reef monitoring has been largely based on divers’ observations along transects, and secondarily on quadrat-based protocols, video and photographic records. However, the accuracy and precision of the most common sampling approaches are not yet fully understood. Here, we compared benthic cover estimates from three common sampling protocols: Reef Check (RC), Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) and photoquadrats (PQ). The reef cover of two contrasting sites was reconstructed with ∼450 m2 orthomosaics built with high resolution Structure-from-Motion (SfM) photogrammetry, which were used as references for comparisons among protocols. In addition, we explored sample size requirements for each protocol and provided cost-effectiveness comparisons. Our results evidenced between-reef differences in the accuracy and precision of estimates with the different protocols. The three protocols performed similarly in the reef with low macroalgal cover (&lt;0.5%), but PQ were more accurate and precise in the reef with relatively high (∼20%) macroalgal cover. The sample size for estimating coral cover with a 20% error margin and a 0.05 significance level was lower for PQ, followed by AGRRA and RC. Considering performance, cost surrogates and equipment needs, cost-effectiveness was higher for PQ. We also discuss costs, limitations and advantages/disadvantages of SfM photogrammetry as a sampling approach for coral reef monitoring. •Accuracy and precision of benthic cover estimates were context-dependent.•Considering performance and costs, photoquadrats were the most cost-effective.•Sample size for estimating coral cover considerably lower for photoquadrats.•Orthomosaics are promising for next-generation coral reef monitoring programs.</description><subject>AGRRA</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anthozoa</subject><subject>Coral Reefs</subject><subject>corals</subject><subject>cost effectiveness</subject><subject>issues and policy</subject><subject>macroalgae</subject><subject>Orthomosaics</subject><subject>Photogrammetry</subject><subject>Photoquadrats</subject><subject>protocols</subject><subject>Reef Check</subject><subject>sample size</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><issn>0141-1136</issn><issn>1879-0291</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkUtPwzAQhC0EgvL4C-AjlxSvHSfOESFeUiU4wA3JcpxN6yqJi50W9d_jqsCVk6XxN971DCFXwKbAoLhZTnsTcNgEjFPOuEhqIVh-QCagyipjvIJDMmGQQwYgihNyGuOSMSZLkMfkRCjIuVR8Qj5eA1oXnR-oGRpqrF0HY7fUt9T6vk-y9cF0NCC2NJp-1blhTlfBj976LiZ9k9wjNvTLjQu6WqSLeTB9j2PYnpOj1nQRL37OM_L-cP9295TNXh6f725nmRWSjVlZVgUKJYxSEozMjapEhXUNSlSmytMHRIl5IUteJwKZaFqwNRrB69JIyMUZud6_m_b6XGMcde-ixa4zA_p11AKkSG6eMvoP5VXKSAFXO7Tcozb4GAO2ehVcin2rgeldC3qp_1rQuxb0voXkvPwZsq57bP58v7En4HYPYEpl4zDoaB0OFhuX6hh1492_Q74BS5-dJA</recordid><startdate>202402</startdate><enddate>202402</enddate><creator>Carneiro, Ivan M.</creator><creator>Sá, João A.</creator><creator>Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M.</creator><creator>Cardoso, Fernando C.</creator><creator>Castro, Guilherme M.</creator><creator>Salomon, Paulo S.</creator><creator>Bastos, Alex C.</creator><creator>Moura, Rodrigo L.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5597-6196</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202402</creationdate><title>Precision and accuracy of common coral reef sampling protocols revisited with photogrammetry</title><author>Carneiro, Ivan M. ; Sá, João A. ; Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M. ; Cardoso, Fernando C. ; Castro, Guilherme M. ; Salomon, Paulo S. ; Bastos, Alex C. ; Moura, Rodrigo L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-7796e383a8851a54a8939ebb1839a9411337e46572b885e03df1cbea32b7a5143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>AGRRA</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anthozoa</topic><topic>Coral Reefs</topic><topic>corals</topic><topic>cost effectiveness</topic><topic>issues and policy</topic><topic>macroalgae</topic><topic>Orthomosaics</topic><topic>Photogrammetry</topic><topic>Photoquadrats</topic><topic>protocols</topic><topic>Reef Check</topic><topic>sample size</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carneiro, Ivan M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sá, João A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cardoso, Fernando C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castro, Guilherme M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salomon, Paulo S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bastos, Alex C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moura, Rodrigo L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Marine environmental research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carneiro, Ivan M.</au><au>Sá, João A.</au><au>Chiroque-Solano, Pamela M.</au><au>Cardoso, Fernando C.</au><au>Castro, Guilherme M.</au><au>Salomon, Paulo S.</au><au>Bastos, Alex C.</au><au>Moura, Rodrigo L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Precision and accuracy of common coral reef sampling protocols revisited with photogrammetry</atitle><jtitle>Marine environmental research</jtitle><addtitle>Mar Environ Res</addtitle><date>2024-02</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>194</volume><spage>106304</spage><epage>106304</epage><pages>106304-106304</pages><artnum>106304</artnum><issn>0141-1136</issn><eissn>1879-0291</eissn><abstract>The rapid decline of coral reefs calls for cost-effective benthic cover data to improve reef health forecasts, policy building, management responses and evaluation. Reef monitoring has been largely based on divers’ observations along transects, and secondarily on quadrat-based protocols, video and photographic records. However, the accuracy and precision of the most common sampling approaches are not yet fully understood. Here, we compared benthic cover estimates from three common sampling protocols: Reef Check (RC), Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) and photoquadrats (PQ). The reef cover of two contrasting sites was reconstructed with ∼450 m2 orthomosaics built with high resolution Structure-from-Motion (SfM) photogrammetry, which were used as references for comparisons among protocols. In addition, we explored sample size requirements for each protocol and provided cost-effectiveness comparisons. Our results evidenced between-reef differences in the accuracy and precision of estimates with the different protocols. The three protocols performed similarly in the reef with low macroalgal cover (&lt;0.5%), but PQ were more accurate and precise in the reef with relatively high (∼20%) macroalgal cover. The sample size for estimating coral cover with a 20% error margin and a 0.05 significance level was lower for PQ, followed by AGRRA and RC. Considering performance, cost surrogates and equipment needs, cost-effectiveness was higher for PQ. We also discuss costs, limitations and advantages/disadvantages of SfM photogrammetry as a sampling approach for coral reef monitoring. •Accuracy and precision of benthic cover estimates were context-dependent.•Considering performance and costs, photoquadrats were the most cost-effective.•Sample size for estimating coral cover considerably lower for photoquadrats.•Orthomosaics are promising for next-generation coral reef monitoring programs.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>38142582</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106304</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5597-6196</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0141-1136
ispartof Marine environmental research, 2024-02, Vol.194, p.106304-106304, Article 106304
issn 0141-1136
1879-0291
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153572206
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects AGRRA
Animals
Anthozoa
Coral Reefs
corals
cost effectiveness
issues and policy
macroalgae
Orthomosaics
Photogrammetry
Photoquadrats
protocols
Reef Check
sample size
Sampling
title Precision and accuracy of common coral reef sampling protocols revisited with photogrammetry
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T11%3A11%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Precision%20and%20accuracy%20of%20common%20coral%20reef%20sampling%20protocols%20revisited%20with%20photogrammetry&rft.jtitle=Marine%20environmental%20research&rft.au=Carneiro,%20Ivan%20M.&rft.date=2024-02&rft.volume=194&rft.spage=106304&rft.epage=106304&rft.pages=106304-106304&rft.artnum=106304&rft.issn=0141-1136&rft.eissn=1879-0291&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106304&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2905781286%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-7796e383a8851a54a8939ebb1839a9411337e46572b885e03df1cbea32b7a5143%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2905781286&rft_id=info:pmid/38142582&rfr_iscdi=true