Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38708339›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Cost-effort analysis of Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) and environmental DNA (eDNA) in monitoring marine ecological communities.

Alice J Clark, Sophie R Atkinson, Valentina Scarponi, Tim Cane, Nathan R Geraldi, Ian W Hendy, J Reuben Shipway, Mika Peck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Assessing Biodiversity at Eastern Oyster (Ecology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Application of spatially robust stereo-BRUV sampling for quantifying fish assemblages in UK marine protected areas.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alice J ClarkDepartment of Ecology & Evolution, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Sophie R AtkinsonDepartment of Ecology & Evolution, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Valentina ScarponiDepartment of Ecology & Evolution, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Tim CaneDepartment of Geography, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Nathan R GeraldiNatureMetrics, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Ian W HendySchool of Biological Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
J Reuben ShipwaySchool of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Mika PeckDepartment of Ecology & Evolution, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Blue Marine FoundationSussex Wildlife Trust and NatureMetrics
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring the diversity and distribution of species in an ecosystem is essential to assess the success of restoration strategies. Implementing biomonitoring methods, which provide a comprehensive assessment of species diversity and mitigate biases in data collection, holds significant importance in biodiversity research. Additionally, ensuring that these methods are cost-efficient and require minimal effort is crucial for effective environmental monitoring. In this study we compare the efficiency of species detection, the cost and the effort of two non-destructive sampling techniques: Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) and environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding to survey marine vertebrate species. Comparisons were conducted along the Sussex coast upon the introduction of the Nearshore Trawling Byelaw. This Byelaw aims to boost the recovery of the dense kelp beds and the associated biodiversity that existed in the 1980s. We show that overall BRUV surveys are more affordable than eDNA, however, eDNA detects almost three times as many species as BRUV. eDNA and BRUV surveys are comparable in terms of effort required for each method, unless eDNA analysis is carried out externally, in which case eDNA requires less effort for the lead researchers. Furthermore, we show that increased eDNA replication yields more informative results on community structure. We found that using both methods in conjunction provides a more complete view of biodiversity, with BRUV data supplementing eDNA monitoring by recording species missed by eDNA and by providing additional environmental and life history metrics. The results from this study will serve as a baseline of the marine vertebrate community in Sussex Bay allowing future biodiversity monitoring research projects to understand community structure as the ecosystem recovers following the removal of trawling fishing pressure. Although this study was regional, the findings presented herein have relevance to marine biodiversity and conservation monitoring programs around the globe.

Indexed as

BiodiversityDNA, EnvironmentalEnvironmental MonitoringAnimalsAquatic OrganismsDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicEcosystemVideo RecordingDNA, EnvironmentalBaseline surveyBiodiversity monitoringCoastal ecosystemMarine biodiversityPopulation ecology

Identifiers

PMID38708339
PMCPMC11067900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.