Implications of 2D versus 3D surveys to measure the abundance and composition of benthic coral reef communities

被引:0
|
作者
Niklas A. Kornder
Jose Cappelletto
Benjamin Mueller
Margaretha J. L. Zalm
Stephanie J. Martinez
Mark J. A. Vermeij
Jef Huisman
Jasper M. de Goeij
机构
[1] University of Amsterdam,Department of Freshwater and Marine Ecology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics
[2] University of Southampton,Maritime Robotics Laboratory, Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Science
[3] Universidad Simón Bolívar,Grupo de I+D en Mecatrónica
[4] CARMABI Foundation,undefined
来源
Coral Reefs | 2021年 / 40卷
关键词
Habitat complexity; Biomass; Standing stock; Community cover composition; Relative abundance; Sponges; Algae; Coelobites; Photogrammetry;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
A paramount challenge in coral reef ecology is to estimate the abundance and composition of the communities residing in such complex ecosystems. Traditional 2D projected surface cover estimates neglect the 3D structure of reefs and reef organisms, overlook communities residing in cryptic reef habitats (e.g., overhangs, cavities), and thus may fail to represent biomass estimates needed to assess trophic ecology and reef function. Here, we surveyed the 3D surface cover, biovolume, and biomass (i.e., ash-free dry weight) of all major benthic taxa on 12 coral reef stations on the island of Curaçao (Southern Caribbean) using structure-from-motion photogrammetry, coral point counts, in situ measurements, and elemental analysis. We then compared our 3D benthic community estimates to corresponding estimates of traditional 2D projected surface cover to explore the differences in benthic community composition using different metrics. Overall, 2D cover was dominated (52 ± 2%, mean ± SE) by non-calcifying phototrophs (macroalgae, turf algae, benthic cyanobacterial mats), but their contribution to total reef biomass was minor (3.2 ± 0.6%). In contrast, coral cover (32 ± 2%) more closely resembled coral biomass (27 ± 6%). The relative contribution of erect organisms, such as gorgonians and massive sponges, to 2D cover was twofold and 11-fold lower, respectively, than their contribution to reef biomass. Cryptic surface area (3.3 ± 0.2 m2 m−2planar reef) comprised half of the total reef substrate, rendering two thirds of coralline algae and almost all encrusting sponges (99.8%) undetected in traditional assessments. Yet, encrusting sponges dominated reef biomass (35 ± 18%). Based on our quantification of exposed and cryptic reef communities using different metrics, we suggest adjustments to current monitoring approaches and highlight ramifications for evaluating the ecological contributions of different taxa to overall reef function. To this end, our metric conversions can complement other benthic assessments to generate non-invasive estimates of the biovolume, biomass, and elemental composition (i.e., standing stocks of organic carbon and nitrogen) of Caribbean coral reef communities.
引用
收藏
页码:1137 / 1153
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Implications of 2D versus 3D surveys to measure the abundance and composition of benthic coral reef communities
    Kornder, Niklas A.
    Cappelletto, Jose
    Mueller, Benjamin
    Zalm, Margaretha J. L.
    Martinez, Stephanie J.
    Vermeij, Mark J. A.
    Huisman, Jef
    de Goeij, Jasper M.
    CORAL REEFS, 2021, 40 (04) : 1137 - 1153
  • [2] Automated 2D, 2.5D, and 3D Segmentation of Coral Reef Pointclouds and Orthoprojections
    Runyan, Hugh
    Petrovic, Vid
    Edwards, Clinton B.
    Pedersen, Nicole
    Alcantar, Esmeralda
    Kuester, Falko
    Sandin, Stuart A.
    FRONTIERS IN ROBOTICS AND AI, 2022, 9
  • [3] 3D Versus 2D Cell Culture: Implications for Electron Microscopy
    Hess, Michael W.
    Pfaller, Kristian
    Ebner, Hannes L.
    Beer, Beate
    Hekl, Daniel
    Seppi, Thomas
    ELECTRON MICROSCOPY OF MODEL SYSTEMS, 2010, 96 : 649 - 670
  • [4] An easy measure of compactness for 2D and 3D shapes
    Bribiesca, Ernesto
    PATTERN RECOGNITION, 2008, 41 (02) : 543 - 554
  • [5] Quantifying 3D coral reef structural complexity from 2D drone imagery using artificial intelligence
    Suan, Aviv
    Franceschini, Simone
    Madin, Joushua
    Madin, Elizabeth
    ECOLOGICAL INFORMATICS, 2025, 85
  • [6] Cross-correlating 2D and 3D galaxy surveys
    Passaglia, Samuel
    Manzotti, Alessandro
    Dodelson, Scott
    PHYSICAL REVIEW D, 2017, 95 (12)
  • [7] 3D versus 2D/3D shape descriptors:: A comparative study
    Zaharia, T
    Prêteux, F
    IMAGE PROCESSING: ALGORITHMS AND SYSTEMS III, 2004, 5298 : 47 - 58
  • [8] 3D Scanning as a Tool to Measure Growth Rates of Live Coral Microfragments Used for Coral Reef Restoration
    Koch, Hanna R.
    Wallace, Bailey
    DeMerlis, Allyson
    Clark, Abigail S.
    Nowicki, Robert J.
    FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE, 2021, 8
  • [9] 2D vs 3D, implications on spatial memory
    Tavanti, M
    Lind, M
    IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON INFORMATION VISUALIZATION 2001, PROCEEDINGS, 2001, : 139 - 145
  • [10] A 3D perspective on sediment accumulation in algal turfs: Implications of coral reef flattening
    Tebbett, Sterling B.
    Streit, Robert P.
    Bellwood, David R.
    JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 2020, 108 (01) : 70 - 80