Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:11:21.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of trawl, grab and camera in estimating marine benthos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

A. D. McIntyre
A. D. McIntyre
Affiliation:
Scottish Home Department, Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Certain animals of the epifauna, because of their distribution over the bottom, are often difficult to sample quantitatively. They may occur as individuals widely dispersed over a large area, or they may be present in dense aggregations which themselves have a patchy distribution. In the past, workers have tried to estimate the numbers of such animals by the combined use of trawls and grabs of various types. The post-war development of underwater photography suggests that the camera will be a useful additional tool (e.g. Vevers, 1951, 1952). During the testing of an underwater camera from Aberdeen an opportunity was taken to compare the estimates of some of the larger epifauna from grab and trawl hauls with estimates derived from underwater photographs. The results are described in this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 1956 , pp. 419 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Marine Biological Association, 1931. Plymouth Marine Fauna, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Vevers, H. G., 1951. Photography of the sea floor. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 30, pp. 101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vevers, H. G., 1952. A photographic survey of certain areas of the sea floor near Plymouth. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., Vol. 31, pp. 215–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar