eddystone reef camera survey report 2014 and... · eddystone reef camera survey report 2014 1...
TRANSCRIPT
Stephen K. Pikesley Holly Latham Jean-Luc Solandt Kimara Street Colin Trundle Matthew J. Witt March 2015 All data remain copyright of the project partners. Maps or data within this report may not be used or referenced without the explicit written consent of the data owners.
EDDYSTONE REEF
CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
1
Executive summary
New Marine Protected Areas are ideally monitored over
time to see the change in biological communities that are
attributable to management measures put in at the site.
The Eddystone reef is part of the Start Point to Plymouth
Sound and Eddystone Special Area of Conservation (SAC),
and management measures were put in place on the SAC
in December 2013 to prohibit bottom towed fishing gears
from using areas that host vulnerable reef-associated
species.
This project is a partnership collaboration between the
University of Exeter (Cornwall Campus) (UofE), Cornwall
Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (CIFCA) and
the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), and funded by the
Pig Shed Trust. The partners collaborated on the
experimental design of the project, with the MCS
identifying the funding partner and co-ordinating the
planning of the project, the CIFCA carrying out the surveys,
and UofE analysing photographs of the benthic
communities of the site.
Initial funding is for three years of surveillance of the site
(2014-2016). Year 1 surveys are outlined in this report and
were carried out between June and October 2014 at 3
sites, one inside the area recently closed to bottom towed
fishing gears, another (control) slightly outside the closed
area, and one far control site nearer to the coast. Initial
results (between 6 and 9 months after the closure to
bottom towed fishing) showed a greater density of seabed
species in the area recently closed to bottom towed fishing
gears.
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
2
Contents
Executive summary 1
Introduction 3
Aims & Objectives 3
Method 5
Results 6
Discussion 17
Appendix 1: CIFCA Survey Field Report v0.3
Appendix 2: Gallery of species
Appendix 3: Species identification confidence
Appendix 4: Survey plan for 2015
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
3
Introduction
The Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (CIFCA), the
responsible body for managing fishing and marine conservation in Cornish
waters, has recently protected1 significant areas within Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs) from bottom-towed fishing. The resultant management
recommendations have been widely accepted by local fishing stakeholders.
In some areas, CIFCA has been precautionary in their approach, and wish to
protect features that were previously towed over by demersal bottom-
towed fishing gear. One such area lies within the Eddystone Reef complex;
situated approximately 9 nautical miles off the southern coast of Cornwall
(South West UK). These benthic habitats provide a significant opportunity to
use of seabed video and photographic surveys to monitor the effects of
these restrictions and to quantify the recovery of these ecosystems. They
are too deep (at over 45m) to safely deploy survey divers.
A multi-partner collaborative consortium, led by the Marine Conservation
Society (MCS), with CIFCA and the University of Exeter (UofE), have
undertaken a funded project to survey these newly protected habitats to
monitor for any long-term changes as they are released from towed gear
fishing pressure. As well as gaining insight into the recovery of these
habitats it is anticipated this project will foster a new collaborative working
relationship between NGOs, regulators and others (such as Universities, and
Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies) that will provide a progressive, more
cohesive approach to UK marine conservation in years to come.
In this report we detail data collection and analysis activities for the first
year of the project at the Eddystone Reef complex.
Aims & Objectives
Aims of the project
1. To identify any changes to the seabed habitats of Eddystone Reef,
now subject to new management restrictions of bottom-towed fishing gears.
2. To use the results to identify changes in sessile and mobile species, habitat and commercial species that are recorded during seabed photographic surveys.
1 http://www.cornwall-
ifca.gov.uk/sitedata/Byelaw_review/CIFCA_byelaws_A5_bookletv1.pdf
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
4
3. To collaboratively report the results of the surveys to the local fishing industry to illustrate the results of the management measures on commercial and biodiversity interests in Cornish waters.
Objectives of the project
1. Analyse high-resolution imagery of habitats, and the change in the
extent and type of habitat over time that are subject to management measures.
2. To demonstrate to the southwest fishing industry that management of bottom towed fishing gears can result in changes in seabed species and habitats.
3. To foster greater co-ordinated working between regulators, conservation advisors and NGOs, in light of new progressive spatial management of heavy impact mobile fishing gears.
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
5
Method
Data collection
Still images were collected in accordance with the Cornwall Inshore Fisheries
and Conservation Authority (CIFCA) Survey Field Report v0.3 detailed in
Appendix 1. Images of very poor quality (image excessively blurred due to
camera movement or seabed obscured by sediment suspension) were
removed from the stills catalogue before transferring the data to the
University of Exeter (UofE).
Camera stills analysis
Analysis of the still images by the UofE was made as follows. Firstly, images
without spatial reference (missing lon/lat) or where no movement of the
frame had been recorded (no change in lon/lat between successive images)
were removed from the analysis.
Each image was then examined at full frame using a 1920 x 1080 pixel
monitor resolution. The substrate was described and classified using EUNIS
habitat classifications (i.e. mixed circalittoral sediment: 5.44). The substrate
was further categorised based on the dominant bottom type using a 4 part
classification system: rock (R), coarse (C), medium (M) and fine (F). Similarly,
the clarity of each image (image quality) was categorised using a three part
classification system: good, medium and poor. The number of lasers
present in each image was counted and the on-screen distance between
marks measured. See Table 1 for all survey tow metadata.
Images were then viewd at full width and panned from top to bottom and
the presence of all conspicuous species noted. These species were then
identified to their highest taxonomic level (i.e. Eunicella verucosa), if this
was not possible species were classified by highest generic common name
(i.e. branched sponge, burrowing anemone, branched bryozoa). If required
the image was zoomed further to aid identification. Confidence in species
identification was recorded on the following scale: low confidence (C1),
moderate confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3). The total number of
each species within the image was recorded. Where species were encrusting
or turf forming a visual assessment of the percentage coverage of these
species were made with the image at full frame. A relative abundance
SACFOR score, adapted from the Marine Nature Conservation Review
(MNCR) SACFOR abundance scales (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/), was then
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
6
assigned for the species. To investigate species diversity between survey
areas (see Appendix 1 for description of survey method and stratification)
we calculated Simpson's index of diversity for each substrate type.
Results
The 2014 Eddystone Reef camera surveys (Fig. 1) generated 226 images
captured from survey boxes 1, 2 and 3 (east to west). Of these images, 2
were without spatial reference and 4 had duplicated spatial references,
these images were not analysed.
Fig. 1. Eddystone Special Area of Conservation (SAC) study area. (a) Eddystone SAC (grey
polygon) in relation to Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (CIFCA)
district boundary (broken line polygon). Part (a) is located according to the inset (b). (c)
Eddystone SAC detailing areas closed to bottom towed gear (red hatched polygon) and
areas with no gear restrictions (green hatched polygon). In all parts 50 m isobath is drawn
and labelled; survey boxes are drawn as blue polygons and labelled in part (c). All map parts
are drawn to differing spatial scales. Maps drawn to Projected Coordinate System: British
National Grid Transverse Mercator.
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
7
No images were rejected as a result of poor image quality. However, 15
images were removed from the stills catalogue prior to transferring the data
to UofE. The number of tows/images per survey box were; box 1 (tows (n =
8): images (n = 137)), box 2 (tows (n = 4): images (n = 72)) and box 3 (tows (n
=1): images (n = 11)), (Fig. 1, 2 and metadata in Table 1).
Fig. 2. Eddystone Special Area of Conservation (SAC) survey box data. (a) box 1, images (n =
137), (b) box 2, images (n = 72) and (c) box 3, images (n = 11). Metadata for each tow are
detailed in Table 1. In all parts survey boxes are drawn as blue polygons (0.44 km2). The
number of species (as defined by 'Species description' column in Table 2) per image are
drawn as a weighted circle using the grey/green/amber/red colour ramp shown in the
figure legend. Average (mean and standard deviation (sd)) depth of image capture per box
are detailed in the legend. In part (a) areas closed to bottom towed gear within the SAC
(grey hatched polygons), reef features (stippled polygon). All map parts are drawn to the
same spatial scale. Maps drawn to Projected Coordinate System: British National Grid
Transverse Mercator.
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
8
Table 1.
Metadata for survey tows. Tows are described by survey box, date, start lon/lat, end lon/lat, depth (m: mean and sd), total distance of tow (m: image to image), tow speed
(ms-1: mean), tow speed (knots: mean), camera frame, images (n), distance between images (m), maximum and minimum distance between images (m), recorded number
of unique species (n) and total number of species counted. The 2014 Eddystone Reef camera surveys generated 226 images captured from survey boxes 1, 2 and 3. Of
these, two images were without spatial reference and four had duplicated spatial reference, these images were not analysed. There were no images rejected as a result of
poor image quality. Longitude and latitude are given in decimal degrees WGS84.
Survey Box
Tow ID Date Start lon Start lat End lon End lat Depth (mean)
Depth (sd)
Total distance (m)
Tow speed (m/s) (mean)
Tow speed (knots) (mean)
Camera frame
Images (n)
Dist. between images (m) (mean)
Max. dist. between images (m)
Min. dist. between images (m)
Species (n) (unique)
Unique species / images (n)
Species (n) (total)
Total species / images (n)
1 ED_140716_Box_1_1 16/07/2014 -4.32852 50.21685 -4.33410 50.21797 51.0 0.7 423 0.50 0.98 SeaSpyder 14 33 76 17 2 0.1 11 0.8
ED_140716_Box_1_2 16/07/2014 -4.33228 50.21420 -4.33740 50.21585 49.7 0.2 423 0.27 0.52 SeaSpyder 23 19 95 4 7 0.3 9 0.4
ED_140716_Box_1_3 16/07/2014 -4.32695 50.21490 -4.32768 50.21543 54.1 2.2 80 0.20 0.40 SeaSpyder 7 13 27 7 10 1.4 23 3.3
ED_140731_Box_1_1 31/07/2014 -4.33697 50.21650 -4.33410 50.21650 52.6 0.2 210 0.18 0.36 Kongsberg 20 11 18 7 9 0.5 19 1.0
ED_140731_Box_1_2 31/07/2014 -4.33663 50.21448 -4.33412 50.21477 51.2 0.2 187 0.13 0.26 Kongsberg 22 9 19 6 6 0.3 12 0.5
ED_140731_Box_1_3 31/07/2014 -4.33688 50.21812 -4.33605 50.21833 51.5 0.2 71 0.08 0.15 Kongsberg 16 5 9 2 9 0.6 30 1.9
ED_140731_Box_1_4 31/07/2014 -4.33173 50.21713 -4.33132 50.21660 51.8 0.1 119 0.15 0.30 Kongsberg 14 9 17 2 6 0.4 22 1.6
ED_140731_Box_1_5 31/07/2014 -4.33812 50.21597 -4.33767 50.21428 49.2 1.6 220 0.21 0.41 Kongsberg 21 11 27 1 17 0.8 66 3.1
2 ED_140619_Box_2_1 19/06/2014 -4.36707 50.22742 -4.36628 50.22535 53.0 0.1 259 0.17 0.32 Kongsberg 28 10 20 4 10 0.4 15 0.5
ED_140619_Box_2_6 19/06/2014 -4.36978 50.22557 -4.36957 50.22288 49.3 2.7 301 0.39 0.75 Kongsberg 14 23 30 19 11 0.8 34 2.4
ED_140731_Box_2_1 31/07/2014 -4.36297 50.22550 -4.36300 50.22622 51.7 0.2 82 0.10 0.19 Kongsberg 15 6 10 2 3 0.2 3 0.2
ED_140731_Box_2_2 31/07/2014 -4.36400 50.22300 -4.36420 50.22397 53.1 0.1 120 0.14 0.28 Kongsberg 15 9 15 2 5 0.3 8 0.5
3 ED_140716_Box_3_1 16/07/2014 -4.50338 50.24462 -4.50777 50.24443 49.4 0.6 316 0.46 0.90 SeaSpyder 11 32 50 15 3 0.3 4 0.4
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
9
Distance between images per individual tow varied (Fig. 3), primarily due to
drift speed of the surveying vessel. Depth of image capture was fairly
consistent, survey box 1: 51.2 m ± 1.5 m (mean ± sd), survey box 2: 52 m ±
1.9 m and survey box 3: 49.4 m ± 0.6 m (Fig. 2, 4).
Fig. 3. Distance (m) between images by individual tow. Plotted boxes show median (bold
line) and inter-quartile ranges; box widths are proportional to the square-roots of the
number of observations in the box, outliers are drawn (open circles). Tails extend to the
approximate 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles.
Fig. 4. Depth (m) of images per individual tow. Plotted boxes show median (bold line) and
inter-quartile ranges; box widths are proportional to the square-roots of the number of
observations in the box, outliers are drawn (open circles). Tails extend to the approximate
2.5th and 97.5th percentiles.
The proportion of images captured per box by substrate type was variable
(Fig. 5). The number of lasers present per image was variable, survey box 1
and survey box 3 had the highest proportion of images with 2 or more lasers
present, survey box 2 had the highest proportion of images with only 1 laser
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
10
present (Fig. 6). Image quality across all survey boxes was predominately
moderate/good with less than ~10% of images per survey box being
classified as ‘poor’ (Fig. 7). See Fig.8 for examples of substrate type and
image quality.
Fig. 5. Proportion of images, categorised by substrate composition, per survey box.
Substrate composition is identified as follows: fine (F), medium (M), coarse (C) and rock (R).
Fig. 6. Proportion of images, categorised by number of lasers present in the image, per
survey box.
Fig. 7. Proportion of images, categorised by image quality, per survey box. Image quality is
identified as follows: poor, moderate (mod) and good.
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
11
Fig. 8. Substrate and image quality. The dominant substrate type for each image was
categorised using a 4 part classification system: rock, coarse, medium and fine. The clarity
of each image (image quality) was categorised using a 3 part classification system: good,
medium and poor. Examples for each of these categories is shown above.
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
12
There were 23 species from eight Phyla identified in survey box 1; 16 species
from 7 Phyla in survey box 2, and 3 species from 3 phyla in survey box 3 (Fig.
9, 10, Table 2); see Appendix 2 for a photo gallery of key species. There was
some variation in species assemblages, by Phyla, among substrate type and
between survey boxes 1 and 2 (Fig. 10).
Fig. 9. Species assemblages, identified to Phylum, by survey box and substrate composition.
For each box/substrate type the total number of images taken, together with the total
number of species recorded is given.
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
13
Fig. 10. Eddystone Special Area of Conservation (SAC) study area detailing areas closed to
bottom towed gear (red hatched polygon), areas with no gear restrictions (green hatched
polygon) and reef features (red polygons). Reef feature data: SeaStar Survey (2006). 50 m
isobath is drawn and labelled, survey boxes are drawn as blue polygons and labelled. For
survey box 1 and 2 species assemblages, identified to Phylum, are drawn as pie charts. The
total number of images, species, and unique species per box are given. Maps drawn to
Projected Coordinate System: British National Grid Transverse Mercator.
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
14
Table 2.
(a) Species list for survey box 1 described by Phylum, species description, common name,
binomial name (scientific name), number of images in which the species were present and
breakdown of images by substrate type, F/M: fine/medium, C: coarse and R: rock.
Survey
box
Phylum Species description Species Id. Scientific name Images (n) Images (n) per
substrate
F/M C R
Box 1 Annelida fan worm sand mason Lanice conchilega 2 0 2 0
fan worm organ pipe worm Serpula vermicularis 1 0 0 1
fan worm no sp id 8 6 2 0
Bryozoa branched bryozoa Cellaria spp Cellaria spp 8 2 2 3
branched bryozoa no sp id 26 13 7 6
encrusting bryozoa no sp id 7 1 0 6
finger bryozoa finger/sea chevril Alcyonidium diaphanum 22 13 7 2
ross coral ross coral Pentapora foliacea 6 2 2 2
spiral bryozoa Bugula spp Bugula spp 1 1 0 0
Chordata sea squirt football sea squirt Diazona violacea 1 0 1 0
Cnidaria anemone sandy creeplet Epizoanthus couchii 18 10 8 0
anemone no sp id 3 2 1 0
burrowing anemone burrowing anemone Peachia cylindrica 1 0 1 0
burrowing anemone burrowing anemone Ceranthus lloydii 2 1 1 0
burrowing anemone no sp id 1 0 1 0
cup coral devonshire cup-coral Caryophyllia smithii 18 2 6 10
dead men's fingers dead men's figers Alcyonium digitatum 9 0 0 9
hydroid no sp id 23 7 12 4
pink sea fan pink sea fan Eunicella verrucosa 12 1 4 7
Crustacea barnacle no sp id 3 1 0 2
Echinoderm feather star common feather star Antedon bifida 1 0 0 1
sea urchin common sea urchin Echinus esculentus 1 0 0 1
starfish seven armed starfish Luidia ciliaris 1 0 0 1
starfish no sp id 2 1 0 1
Mollusca limpet white tortoiseshell limpet Tectura virginea 1 1 0 0
scallop king scallop Pecten maximus 1 1 0 0
sea slug no sp id 3 1 2 0
Porifera boring sponge boring sponge Cliona celata 2 0 0 2
branched sponge no sp id 8 1 2 5
hedgehog sponge hedgehog sponge Polymastia boletiformis 1 1 0 0
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
15
(b) Species list for survey box 2 described by Phylum, species description, species Id.,
binomial name (scientific name), number of images in which the species were present and
breakdown of images by substrate type, F/M: fine/medium, C: coarse and R: rock.
Survey box Phylum Species
description
Species Id. Scientific name Images (n) Images (n) per
substrate
F/M C R
Box 2 Annelida fan worm no sp id 3 1 2 0
Bryozoa branched bryozoa no sp id 8 3 2 3
finger bryozoa finger/sea chevril Alcyonidium diaphanum 2 1 1 0
Cnidaria anemone cloak anenome Adamsia carciniopados 2 0 2 0
anemone sandy creeplet Epizoanthus couchii 4 3 1 0
anemone no sp id 1 0 0 1
cup coral Devonshire cup-coral Caryophyllia smithii 6 1 0 5
dead men's fingers dead men's figers Alcyonium digitatum 2 0 0 2
hydroid no sp id 8 2 1 5
stalked hydroid solitary stalked hydroid Corymorpha nutans 3 3 0 0
Cnidaria pink sea fan pink sea fan Eunicella verrucosa 6 2 0 4
Crustacea barnacle no sp id 1 1 0 0
crab harbour crab Liocarcinus depurator 1 1 0 0
hermit crab anemone hermit crab Pagurus prideaux 1 0 1 0
hermit crab common hermit crab Pagurus bernhadus 1 0 1 0
Echinoderm sea urchin common sea urchin Echinus esculentus 1 0 0 1
starfish common starfish Asterias rubens 4 0 4 0
starfish seven armed starfish Luidia ciliaris 1 1 0 0
Mollusca scallop king scallop Pecten maximus 1 1 0 0
scallop queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis 2 1 1 0
scallop no sp id 1 1 0 0
snail painted top-shell Calliostoma zizyphinum 1 0 0 1
(c) Species list for survey box 3 described by Phylum, species description, species Id.,
binomial name (scientific name), number of images in which the species were present and
breakdown of images by substrate type, F/M: fine/medium, C: coarse and R: rock.
Survey box Phylum Species description Species Id. Scientific name Images (n) Images (n) per
substrate
F/M C R
Box 3 Bryozoa branched bryozoa no sp id 1 1 0 0
Cnidaria hydroid no sp id 2 2 0 0
Mollusca scallop no sp id 1 1 0 0
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
16
The substrate 'rock' had the highest average (mean) number of species and
Phyla per image for both survey box 1 and 2 (Fig. 11, 12). There was little
variability in species diversity among substrate type, or between survey
boxes 1 and 2 (Table 3).
Fig. 11. Species (n) per image, by substrate type, per survey box. Bar graphs are drawn with
mean and standard error bars.
Fig. 12. Phylum (n) per image, by substrate type, per survey box. Bar graphs are drawn with
mean and standard error bars.
Table 3.
Simpson's index of diversity for survey box1 and 2 by substrate type, the greater the value
of the index, the greater the diversity. Insufficient data were collected in survey box 3 to
facilitate a meaningful comparison.
Substrate Box 1 Box 2
fine/medium 0.89 0.95
coarse 0.91 0.93
rock 0.92 0.87
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
17
Discussion
The amount of species per unit area (photo) is greatest from box 1 – the
area that is closed to mobile fishing gear. The actual diversity of life – as
analyses using Simpson’s diversity index differs little between the treatment
(no trawling) box 1 and the near control (box 2). Box 2 did however have a
greater amount of echinoderms in the images that are often linked to areas
that are fished, as many echinoderms are scavengers (particularly starfish on
coarse and finer sediments), and predate on damaged seabed species after
the passage of bottom trawls. There were more upright benthic sessile filter
feeders in box 1 than box 2 per image on gravel and finer sand and muddy
sediments that would indicate either naturally better conditions for growth
of these species, or perhaps an impact from towed fishing gears in adjacent
box 2, suppressing the growth of upright seabed life. In box 1 there was a
considerably higher abundance of bryzoans compared to in box 2 (near
control) where trawling takes place. Further surveys in future years will offer
an insight as to whether these are trends that become apparently more
significant over time, as the communities in the managed area begin to
adopt different species densities in the absence of use by heavy fishing gear.
The camera equipment used by the project would be able to pick up
recruitment of some species within this timeframe.
The surveys met the target for gathering still images from box 1 (the
treatment site), and in box 2 (near control). The partners worked
constructively to identify adequate sampling units that were ecologically
similar in the amount of reef, the aspect of the reef, and the relative
quantity of sand and coarse sand. Partners were made aware of the
opportunity to undertake a good control study area in Box 3 at a late stage
in project planning, but because of poor weather and logistical issues, it was
difficult to visit this site and carry out the required number of transects.
There was an opportunity to undertake further surveys in this area in
October, but it was felt that this would potentially offer erroneous data
(pseudoreplication), as all other sites had data collected in summer months,
when upright seasonal life (such as hydroids) grow to their maximum extent.
Building on the success of 2014, several modifications will be made to the
equipment and techniques to further enhance data collection, whilst
ensuring that 2014 remains the baseline to which all subsequent data will be
compared. It is proposed that a greater number of images will be captured
during the 2015/2016 surveys, with a similar number of images being
recorded within each survey box. It is also envisaged that with the
EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014
18
procurement of a new vessel and camera array by CIFCA, that survey
hardware will be standardised across all subsequent surveys. It is also
anticipated that all boxes will be surveyed within a shorter period of time
and earlier in the season, weather permitting. The collection of these data
will subsequently allow for the use of further advanced statistical
approaches to examine changes and difference in seabed community
composition in later years as the dataset grows.
Appendix 1: CIFCA Survey Field Report v0.3
Survey Field Report
Eddystone Reef Monitoring 2014
Document History
Author/s K Street, C Trundle
Version Date Author Change
0.1 21/10/14 K Street Document creation compiling
all field reports
0.2 22/10/14 C Trundle Review and amendments
0.3 16/12/14 K Street Update SeaSpyder spec
Contents
Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................... 21
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 22
1.1 Staff ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
1.2 Geological and Biological Context (Brief summary of origins and development) ............................... 22
2 Aims and objectives ................................................................................................................................ 24
2.1 Aims ................................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2 Objectives......................................................................................................................................... 24
3 Cruise Narrative....................................................................................................................................... 24
3.1 ED140619 .......................................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 ED140716 .......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 ED140731 .......................................................................................................................................... 25
4 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
5 Sample stills ............................................................................................................................................ 28
6 Quality Control ........................................................................................................................................ 33
6.1 Positioning and Bathymetry ........................................................................................................ 33
6.2 Seabed video and stills ................................................................................................................. 33
7 Human Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 33
8 Health and safety events ......................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX 1 – Equipment Calibration .............................................................................................................. 34
APPENDIX 2 – Vessels and Equipment Used .................................................................................................... 35
APPENDIX 3 Offsets ......................................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX 4 Daily progress reports .................................................................................................................. 41
APPENDIX 5 Survey metadata.......................................................................................................................... 43
APPENDIX 6 Lessons Log .................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX 7 Full breakdown of survey operation time ...................................................................................... 4
Executive summary
Cornwall IFCA, University of Exeter’s Environmental Sustainability Institute (ESI), and the
Marine Conservation Society (MCS) have established a joint project to monitor changes to
reef epifaunal assemblages following closure to bottom towed fishing gears in parts of the
Eddystone reefs. Cornwall IFCA is responsible for data collection and thus far has conducted
three DDV surveys capturing a total of 288 still images and 5hr: 33min of video data.
All partners were present on the first survey to initiate the project, agree the methodology
and review the quality of the data collected. Two of the surveys were plagued with
equipment failures resulting in a reduction of the expected numbers of sites completed
during each survey. Combined with limited vessel and crew availability during favourable
weather windows data from the Far Control site is still to be collected. Cornwall IFCA is
planning one further DDV survey day within the next month to complete the practical work
for 2014.
1 Introduction
1.1 Staff
Cornwall IFCA’s Senior Scientific Officer (Colin Trundle) and Scientific Officer (Kimara Street)
were both present for all survey days with various members of the Cornwall IFCA team
contributing time to assist in the survey operation.
The survey crew for ED140619 were:
SIC & Winch Operator Colin Trundle
Data Recorder Kimara Street
Deck Crew Nigel Beswetherick
Daniel McIntyre
The survey crew for ED140716 were:
SIC & Winch Operator Colin Trundle
Data Recorder Kimara Street
Deck Crew Nigel Beswetherick
Daniel McIntyre
Gavin Purcell
The survey crew for ED140731 were:
SIC & Winch Operator Colin Trundle
Data Recorder Kimara Street
Deck crew Sam Davis
1.2 Geological and Biological Context (Brief summary of origins and development)
On the 1st of January 2014 Cornwall IFCAs Closed Areas (European Marine Sites) Byelaw
came into force; prohibiting the use of bottom towed gears in European Marine Sites within
the District. The Eddystone section of the Start Point to Plymouth Sound and Eddystone
Special Area of Conservation (SAC) has been zoned to protect site features, including a
260m buffer zone, and allow fishing activity to continue in areas with little possibility of gear
interaction (figure 1).
Figure 1: Survey Location
Cornwall IFCA, ESI and MCS, with funding from the Pig Shed Trust (Figure 2), have
established a collaborative project with the aim of assessing changes to epifaunal
assemblages following the prohibition of bottom towed fishing gears.
Figure 2: Project partners present on ED140619
2 Aims and objectives
2.1 Aims
To acquire high quality biological data of a suitable resolution to detect changes to
epifaunal assemblages over a period of 3 years in the first instance.
2.2 Objectives
Follow the agreed methodology in undertaking DDV survey work within selected
survey boxes.
Provide all data and field report to ESI and MCS.
3 Cruise Narrative
3.1 ED140619
Saint Piran departed Newlyn at 0900 and steamed to Fowey where the project partners
were picked up by RIB. The first tow commenced at 1315 when the vessel was in position.
The first tow, Box 2 Tow 1, followed the planned tow and was completed successfully, with
mainly mixed sediment being recorded. This tow was expected to contain reef habitats,
based on available evidence, so it was therefore decided to conduct the next tow to the
west, closer to the reef, with the aim of capturing the reef edge. This tow was also largely
successful; however the camera became snagged on static fishing gear making it difficult to
recover. As a result the connection between the camera and the umbilical became
damaged and the camera system was no longer operational, therefore the survey was
halted for the day.
3.2 ED140716
Saint Piran departed Newlyn at 10:00 and the first tow commenced at 14:18. The first tow
was conducted along the southern edge of Box 3; the Far Control box. It was not possible
to conduct any tows further within the box due to the visible static fishing gear markers
within the area, indicating a high number of pots/nets and therefore a high risk of
loss/damage of the camera.
Saint Piran then steamed to Box 1 to commence the second camera tow of the day at 15:30.
This was a successful tow achieving 15 stills, mainly recording mixed sediment. During the
second tow in Box 1 the winch stopped working. Whilst the engineer tried to solve the
problem the data recorder continued to take opportunistic stills and stills at 1 minute
intervals, however as there was no control over the height of the camera some of the stills
are out of focus as the camera was moving. The camera was recovered manually to the
deck with all deck crew helping to haul the camera.
The winch issue was believed to be resolved and so a third tow within Box 1 commenced,
however the winch temporarily failed again and it was decided to end the survey.
In total fifty stills were collected in Box 1 and eleven on Box 3.
3.3 ED140731
Wave Chieftain departed Mylor at 08:30 and equipment was set up on the steam out to the
site. Winds were force 4 to 5 SW causing the slightly choppy conditions, this along with big
spring tides, meant that some of the drift speeds were slightly faster than would normally
be desirable, and caused some lurching of the camera frame away from the seabed. This
did not affect the quality of the still images collected.
As the team were working on an unfamiliar vessel it was decided to conduct the first tows in
Box 4 far from the reef. The vessel was on site at 10:00. Four tows were conducted in Box
4, the prevailing conditions dictated that the direction of the tow was from west to east.
The tows were planned around the static gear set within the box.
At 12:24 the vessel was on site in Box 1 where a further five tows were conducted. Again
the tows were planned to avoid static gear in the area, working with the prevailing
conditions and aiming for the best coverage possible over the reef edge and flat ground out
to the east of the reef.
At 15:40 the vessel was on site at Box 2 where two tows were conducted as two tows had
previously been completed (ED 140619). The previous two tows were close to the reef edge
so it was therefore decided to gap fill with two more tows further out from the reef.
At 18:50 the vessel arrived back at Mylor.
4 Results
In total 288 stills have been collected and 5hours and 33minutes of video data. At least four
tows have been conducted in the Treatment and Near Control sites, however the Far
Control site remains to be completed (Figure 3). Camera tows have also been completed
within a fourth survey box; an area of distinctly different habitat which is now closed to
towed gear.
Figure 3: Stills locations from all surveys to date.
5 Sample stills
Tow ID Approx.
Length
(meters)
Number of Stills
Sample Still
ED141619_
Box2_1
265 28
ED140619_
Box2_2
300 14
ED140716_
Box3_1
350 11
ED140716_
Box1_1
500 15
ED140716_
Box1_2
430 (including
90m of no stills
data only video)
24
ED140716_
Box1_3
100 11
ED140731_
Box4_1
540 18
ED140731_
Box4_2
430 20
ED140731_
Box4_3
180 10
ED140731_
Box4_4
150 14
ED140731_
Box1_1
220 20
ED140731_
Box1_2
200 22
ED140731_
Box1_3
70 16
ED140731_
Box1_4
80 14
ED140731_
Box1_5
200 21
ED140731_
Box2_1
100 15
ED140731_
Box2_2
120 15
6 Quality Control
6.1 Positioning and Bathymetry
GPS positioning was calibrated with known positions at the start of each day (as outlined in
annex 1), and offsets on GPS antenna position and deployment area were recorded (annex
3).
6.2 Seabed video and stil ls
At the time of image capture, notes were made of any image ‘defects’ if they were
identified. Many defects were only noticed during the cataloguing process. Accordingly, the
stills log spreadsheet contains a field to describe image faults.
7 Human Activities
No obvious changes to habitat were noted due to anthropogenic activity on survey sites.
8 Health and safety events
There were no health and safety events to report or near misses.
APPENDIX 1 – Equipment Calibration
At the start of each day, all timing devices were synched to the time from the Furuno GP32
GPS, i.e. the one that was displayed in the Olex. This was set at UTC + 1.
On all surveys, it proved impossible to change the date/time on the camera so all timings
were referenced to that on the GP 32.
GPS positioning was calibrated every day at the start of the survey against an object of
known position.
APPENDIX 2 – Vessels and Equipment Used
Three survey days have been carried out to date using two different vessels and two
different camera systems. Both vessels and camera systems are described below with the
relevant cruise code.
Equipment Specifications
Kongsberg System (ED140619 and ED140713)
Kongsberg OE 14-208 video/stills camera
Kongsberg OE 11-142 Flash unit
4 Seatronics SEA LED lights
200m umbillical and ‘Y’ splice
Topside camera and light control unit
LS Electronics GPS video overlay unit, with remote GPS antenna
Scaling; 2 x Z Bolt battery lasers pointers (for image scaling). ED 140619 set at
120mm spacing, ED140713 set at 200mm spacing.
Cornwall IFCA aluminium camera frame {1000mm (l) x 750mm (w) x 750mm (h)}
Samsung NX550P laptop PC to capture streamed video
Acer laptop running Kongsberg GUI to control still image capture
Samsung NX550P laptop as back for other laptops
Pinnacle video capture hardware/software
Panasonic Toughbook operating Olex Navigation software
Evermore SA 320 GPS (position data for Olex)
Figure 4: Camera, strobe and light set up
within the drop frame
Figure 5: Camera, strobe and light set up
within the drop frame
Seaspyder System (ED140716)
Camera System
STR Seaspyder 18Mp U/W digital still camera (18 mega pixels)
STR Seaspyder High power U/W camera flash
4 STR Seaspyder 20W High intensity LED light
2 STR Seaspyder Subsea scaling laser (Red; 100mm spacing)
Seaspyder camera frame (Figure 6)
Recording Equipment
Seaspyder top side equipment ( 2 monitors and 2 PCs) running SeaSpyder software
1 Lap top with Pinnacle video capture hardware/software
Pro forma recording sheet
Figure 6: SeaSpyder Camera System
Figure 7: Lab set up
Saint Piran (ED140619 and ED140716)
Length 27.07m Beam 6.75m Draught 1.7m Construction Aluminium, double chine Propulsion 2x 38 000cc twin turbo Cummins KTA38-M2 engines Speed Cruising 16/18 knots, max speed 22 knots
Figure 6: FPV Saint Piran
Wave Chieftain (ED140731)
Length 12.8m Beam 5.18m Speed 28 knots top speed, 18 knots cruising speed
Figure 8: Wave Chieftain (Source: http://www.cornishfishing.co.uk)
Survey Method and Crew Responsibilities
Helm Winch Operator Scribe Deck Crew
Before
tow
Fill header data into
recording sheet; tow
number etc
Type video file name
When
on
site
Notify all crew vessel
is in position for start
of tow
Hold clapper board
to camera
Take still and short
video of clapper
board file
Start
of tow
Control vessel along
camera tow
Lower camera
pausing under the
deck crews direction
Note time and
position of
deployment
Start video recording
Start ‘Track’ on Olex
Tape umbilical to
back line every 5m
(approx.)
First
still
Control vessel along
camera tow
Communicated to
crew when camera is
on the seabed
(observe second
monitor)
Take a still and Add a
‘Mark’ on the Olex .
Record; time,
position (from Olex
mark), depth,
comments.
Label Olex mark
Monitor rope and
umbilical
Repeat for each still at 60 second intervals to the end of tow
End of
tow
Manoeuvre vessel
for safe recovery of
camera.
Position vessel for
next camera tow
Directly after last still
winch camera to
surface.
Secure camera cage .
Record end of tow
End video recording.
Finish the Olex
‘Track’
Monitor rope and
umbilical.
Secure camera cage.
Repeat whole process for each tow
APPENDIX 3 Offsets
Camera deployment area
ED140619 and ED140716 on ‘Saint Piran’ the camera was deployed to the stern
of the vessel on the starboard side.
ED140731 on ‘Wave Chieftain’ the camera was deployed over the starboard side
just aft of the wheel house.
Video Overlay GPS and GP32
Accuracy
The GP32 for the Olex (Evermore SA320) is accurate to 3m. The GPS for the
video overlay is accurate to less than 10m.
Position
Both GPS antenna were positioned as close to the camera deployment area as
possible. On ‘Saint Piran’ within 4m of the deployment area (forward and 1m
inboard), on Wave Chieftain was less than a meter to port from the deployment
area.
APPENDIX 4 Daily progress reports
Figures 9, 10 and 11 below shows the locations of stills collected per day.
Figure 9 ED140619
Figure 10 ED140716
Figure 11: ED140731
APPENDIX 5 Survey metadata
Tow_ID Date Time of SOL
Time of EOL
Video Length
(min:sec)
No of Stills
SOL Latitude
SOL Longitude
EOL Latitude
EOL Longitude
ED_140619_Box_2_1 19/06/2014 13:13:33 13:39:35 00:26:02 28 50.22742 4.36707 50.30020 5.20540
ED_140619_Box_2_6 19/06/2014 14:08:07 14:21:09 00:13:02 14 50.22557 4.36978 50.29840 5.20809
ED_140716_Box_3_1 16/07/2014 14:31:43 14:43:05 00:11:22 11 50.24462 4.50338 50.31967 5.34204
ED_140716_Box_1_1 16/07/2014 15:31:13 15:45:11 00:13:58 15 50.21685 4.32852 50.28899 5.16667
ED_140716_Box_1_2 16/07/2014 16:00:22 16:26:34 00:26:12 24 50.21420 4.33228 50.28640 5.17039
ED_140716_Box_1_3 16/07/2014 17:30:30 17:37:01 00:06:31 11 50.21490 4.32695 50.28702 5.16507
ED_140731_Box4_1 31/07/2014 10:10:39 10:28:43 00:18:04 18 50.20035 4.39223 50.27355 5.23013
ED_140731_Box4_2 31/07/2014 10:53:30 11:12:34 00:19:04 20 50.19883 4.40083 50.19905 4.39515
ED_140731_Box4_3 31/07/2014 11:25:43 11:34:44 00:09:01 10 50.20403 4.40318 50.20392 4.40115
ED_140731_Box4_4 31/07/2014 11:54:43 12:08:45 00:14:02 14 50.19473 4.40362 50.19472 4.40203
ED_140731_Box1_1 31/07/2014 12:32:08 12:51:12 00:19:04 20 50.21650 4.33697 50.21650 4.33410
ED_140731_Box1_2 31/07/2014 12:13:02 13:36:08 01:23:06 22 50.21448 4.33663 50.21477 4.33412
ED_140731_Box1_3 31/07/2014 13:56:02 14:11:02 00:15:00 16 50.21812 4.33688 50.21833 4.33605
ED_140731_Box1_4 31/07/2014 14:22:57 14:36:01 00:13:04 14 50.21713 4.33173 50.21660 4.33132
ED_140731_Box1_5 31/07/2014 15:05:56 15:23:26 00:17:30 21 50.21597 4.33812 50.21428 4.33767
ED_140731_Box2_1 31/07/2014 15:45:07 15:59:10 00:14:03 15 50.22550 4.36297 50.22622 4.36300
ED_140731_Box2_2 31/07/2014 16:09:45 16:23:48 00:14:03 15 50.22300 4.36400 50.22397 4.36420
Total 05:33:08 288
APPENDIX 6 Lessons Log
ED140619
What went well; learnt from previous surveys
Equipment set up and crew all worked well; as tested previously. The
camera angle and lighting also worked well in the CIFCA frame resulting in
clear, well lit stills.
Adaptations that worked well
NA
Adaptations for next survey
The camera became caught on a pot rope that hadn’t been visible on the
video, this was totally unforeseen, and all crew worked calmly and
effectively to recover the camera. In the future, as is the case with all
surveys, all crew will continue to keep a look out for pot buoys to try to
prevent this happening again. Back up kit could be carried on future
surveys, e.g. umbilical and camera, to could prevent lost time whilst kit is
down for any reason, e.g. damage or malfunction. This is dependent on
price, availability and space on the vessel.
ED140716
The Seaspyder kit was used because this is the kit that will be readily
available to Cornwall IFCA in the future to use for surveys, which will make
survey planning a lot easier. The camera has higher resolution stills the
Kongsberg camera and the added benefit of being able to download images
straight from the camera without taking the camera out of the frame
minimising the risk of losing data.
As this was the first time of using the camera the survey team were
unfamiliar with the camera functions and could not get perfect quality stills.
To try to minimise this effect an engineer came with the camera, however
his expertise was in the hardware not the software. This issue will be
resolved with practice, however may have been a bit optimistic for the first
time using new equipment.
What went well; learnt from previous surveys
Deck and lab set up.
Adaptations that worked well
The lights were lowered in the frame to provide better lighting for the video
and stills. This was seen to be an improvement on the previous trial with
this camera.
Adaptations for next survey
Saint Piran can no longer be used for camera work as the winch is not
designed for such repetitive, continuous use and has obviously been
struggling. Therefore in future other survey vessels will be used with
suitable winches or haulers.
The lasers seemed to be working intermittently, possibly due to them not
being tightened up enough, or batteries fading. New batteries will be used
for every survey, and the tightness of the seal checked.
ED140731
What went well; learnt from previous surveys
NA
Adaptations that worked well
The equipment set up worked well on Wave Chieftain; top side set up
worked well in the wheelhouse and the winch operator could view the
monitor from the winch.
Adaptations for next survey
The conditions were slightly challenging with strong tides and choppy seas,
this may have been exasperated by working on a mono-hull boat with less
stability than a catamaran. Cornwall IFCA is looking to purchase a new
catamaran research vessel which will be used in future surveys when ready.
This may alleviate some of the lurching of the camera, and allow the team to
choose better weather days, rather than having to book a week in advance
of the survey.
APPENDIX 7 Full breakdown of survey operation time
ED140619 - 19/06/2014
Time Activity
0800-0900 Load equipment on Saint Piran and begin mobilisation
0900-1130 Steam to Fowey river mouth
1130-1200 2 trips for Lyonesse to ferry guests from Fowey
1200-1230 Steam to 1st survey site, introductions and safety brief
1230-1515 On station, carry out 2 tows before damaging equipment, time spent trying to rectify the issue. Unresolvable so survey abandoned
1700-1730 Return to Fowey river mouth
1730-1800 Ferry guests ashore.
1800-2345 Fishery patrol from Eddystone to Lizard Point then return to Newlyn
2345-0000 Secure vessel and away.
ED140716 – 16/07/14
Time Activity
0900-1100 Load equipment on Saint Piran and begin mobilisation
1100-1400 Steam to first station
1400-1745 On station, 4 tows completed before winch failed. Repair attempts failed so survey abandoned
1800-2230 Fishery patrol from Eddystone area to Lizard Point then return to Newlyn
2230-2245 Secure vessel and away.
ED140731– 31/07/14
Time Activity
0630-0715 Travel from Penzance to Mylor, meet Wave Chieftain
0715-0745 Load equipment and mobilise
0745-0930 Steam to first station
0930-1630 On station, 11 tows completed before survey abandoned due to increasing wind
1645-1900 Return to Mylor, demobilise and ashore
1900-2000 Return to Penzance
Appendix 2: Gallery of species
Images are identified as follows: i.e. 0716[date: mmdd], B1_1[Survey box 1, tow number 1],
004[image number]. Species are identified by common name and where possible, binomial
name (scientific name). An indication of confidence in identification is given: low confidence
(C1), moderate confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3). See Appendix 3 for species
identification confidence proportions per box.
Images are identified as follows: i.e. 0716[date: mmdd], B1_1[Survey box 1, tow number 1],
004[image number]. Species are identified by common name and where possible, binomial
name (scientific name). An indication of confidence in identification is given: low confidence
(C1), moderate confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3). See Appendix 3 for species
identification confidence proportions per box.
Images are identified as follows: i.e. 0716[date: mmdd], B1_1[Survey box 1, tow number 1],
004[image number]. Species are identified by common name and where possible, binomial
name (scientific name). An indication of confidence in identification is given: low confidence
(C1), moderate confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3). See Appendix 3 for species
identification confidence proportions per box.
Images are identified as follows: i.e. 0716[date: mmdd], B1_1[Survey box 1, tow number 1],
004[image number]. Species are identified by common name and where possible, binomial
name (scientific name). An indication of confidence in identification is given: low confidence
(C1), moderate confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3). See Appendix 3 for species
identification confidence proportions per box.
Appendix 3: Species identification confidence
Species identification confidence per survey box. Confidence in species
identification was recorded on the following scale: low confidence (C1), moderate
confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3).
The total number of species (n) are identified by confidence classification, and
expressed as a percentage (%) per survey box.
Low Moderate High
(n) (%) (n) (%) (n) (%)
Box 1 30 16 115 60 47 24
Box 2 3 5 35 58 22 37
Box 3 0 0 4 100 0 0
Appendix 4: Survey plan for 2015