ArticlePloS one2020
A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Offshore oil and gas platforms have a finite life of production operations. Once production ceases, decommissioning options for the platform are assessed. The role that a platform's jacket plays as fish habitat can inform the decommissioning decision. In this study, conducted along the crossbeams of a California platform jacket and using an ROV, we compared estimates of fish diversity and densities determined from a targeted "biological" survey with those from a replicated "structural" survey. We found that the water column fish species assemblages characterized by the two methods were similar. By contrast, the two survey methods yielded different species assemblages inhabiting the crossbeam at the platform jacket base. This difference occurred because, at least off California, the platform jacket base species diversity tends to be highest where the bottom crossbeam is undercut, creating sheltering sites for many species. Because the structural method inadequately imaged the seafloor-crossbeam interface, particularly where a gap occurred between crossbeam and seafloor, substantial numbers of fishes were not visible. While we cannot extrapolate from this study to all platforms' worldwide, it is clear that routine platform structural integrity surveys may be a valuable source for opportunistic marine community surveys. Intentional planning of the structural survey to incorporate relatively minor variations (e.g., maintaining fixed ROV distance from the infrastructure and consistent 90° camera angle) coupled with a deliberate consideration of the platform ecology (e.g., positioning the ROV to capture the seafloor-crossbeam interface) can substantially improve the effects on fish assemblage assessments from routine structural surveys without compromising the integrity assessment. We suggest that these biases should be both acknowledged and, understood when using routine structural surveys to inform platform ecology assessment. Additional consideration may be given to structural surveys that incorporate incremental adjustments to provide better data applicability to biological assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.