Investigating the use of underwater video for the determination of

size, stock density, and temporal patterns of habitat usage of

grouper on hard-bottom habitats

Project Number 08-FEG-12

Erin J. Burge1, Jim Atack2, Craig Andrews3

Report Date: 10 November 2009

1
Corresponding author. Coastal Carolina University, Department of Marine Science, PO Box
261954, Conway, SC 29526, phone: (843) 349-6491, e-mail: eburge@coastal.edu
2
In Sea State Inc., 111 SW 20th St., Oak Island, NC 28465
3
Over & Under Adventures Inc., 4956 Longbeach Rd # 14-149 Southport, NC 28461
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

ABSTRACT

Accurate assessments of economically and ecologically important finfish populations are

critical to single- and multi-species fishery management. As such, a diversity of data collection
methodologies are advantageous for species of high economic value, both from a scientific desire
to ensure the most sound population assessments, and from the perspective of public acceptance
of scientific and management recommendations for the use of fishery resources. In this pilot
project we investigated the use of a non-traditional and relatively inexpensive, collaborative
method for enhancing fishery-independent datasets by collecting underwater video of grouper
habitats. To our knowledge, a stationary video supplemental stock assessment for gag grouper
(Mycteroperca microlepis) has not previously been attempted. Underwater video techniques
were used to document the presence/absence, estimated size, density, behavioral patterns, and
temporal habitat usage of gag grouper on shallow water, hard-bottom habitats on the continental
shelf of North Carolina. A comparison between video findings and diver visual surveys of
groupers at the same locations was also made.
Survey dives (n = 57) were conducted from June 2008 – January 2009 and resulted in
observations of 1813 scamp (M. phenax), 305 gag, 97 yellowmouth grouper (M. interstitialis)
and 118 individuals of other serranid species in the total standard definition (SD) video footage
analyzed (24.6 h). Comparing equal segments of each video (15 minute) resulted in observations
of 760 scamp, 115 gag, 33 yellowmouth, 27 graysby (Cephalopholis cruentatus), 13 red grouper
(Epinephelus morio), nine rock hind (E. adscensionis), two goliath grouper (E. itajara), and six
unidentified serranids in 8.5 hours of video observation. Comparisons were made at multiple
locations, using baited and unbaited camera deployments on ledge and live-bottom habitats.
There were no significant differences in the numbers of gag and scamp detected for surveys in
which bait was not used, nor were differences detected for scamp between the two habitat types.
Gag grouper were more frequently observed on live-bottom habitats.
With the necessity of accurate assessments for resource managers becoming more important,
non-extractive survey techniques, similar to those employed in this program, should be
considered for future applications. These video survey techniques were also valuable for
observations of fish community structure and some behavioral traits, suggesting that the addition
of similar video observation protocols to MARMAP (or similar) fishery-independent data
collections would be very valuable for immediate assessments on critical species, and for long-
term monitoring of trends in community structure.

2
 INTRODUCTION

Accurate assessments of economically and ecologically important finfish populations are

critical to single- and multi-species fishery management. As such, a diversity of data collection
methodologies are advantageous for species of high economic value, both from a scientific desire
to ensure the most sound population assessments, and from the perspective of public acceptance
of scientific and management recommendations for the use of fishery resources. The latest gag
grouper assessment and recommendations (SEDAR10, 2006) utilized data from both fishery-
dependent and fishery-independent indices of abundance. These fishery-dependent datasets
included commercial handline and longline fisheries, recreational headboat landings and MRFSS
data from the recreational charter and private boat sectors. Fishery-independent data were
developed from the SEAMAP reef fish video survey in the Gulf of Mexico and MARMAP
cruises in North and South Carolina.
Groupers (Family Serranidae, Subfamily Epinephilinae) play an important global role in
hard-bottom ecosystems as high trophic level predators, and also support valuable commercial
and recreational fisheries (Parrish, 1987). Groupers primarily live in habitats of complex
topography and hard substrates (Chiappone et al., 2000; Smith, 1961) over a range of depths (1
to 300 m), and eat mainly fishes and crustaceans (Parrish, 1987). Certain characteristics of
moderate to large species within the group that potentially negatively affect fisheries include
slow growth, delayed reproduction, long life span, reduced spawning period, and commonly,
protogynous sex reversal (reviewed in Coleman et al., 2000).
Along the continental shelf of North Carolina gag and scamp grouper were the most
commonly recorded moderate to large serranids from hard-bottom visual diver surveys in the
1970s (1975-80) and the early 1990s (1990-92) (Parker Jr. and Dixon, 1998), although they share
space with other members of the snapper-grouper complex in this region (Grimes et al., 1982;
Parker Jr., 1990; Quattrini and Ross, 2006; Quattrini et al., 2004). Both gag and scamp display
reproductive aggregation behavior (Coleman et al., 1996) and appear to have limited home
ranges (Heinisch and Fable Jr., 1999; Kiel, 2004). Kiel (2004) reported a tendency of gag to be
site specific and to utilize a central core site as a result of numerous relocations of tagged gag on
or near specific patch reefs.
In this project we investigated the use of non-traditional and relatively inexpensive,
collaborative methods for enhancing fishery-independent datasets by collecting underwater video
data of gag grouper habitats without fish extraction. Underwater video techniques are useful for
quantifying and observing fishes and were used in this study to estimate grouper sizes, densities,
behavior, and temporal patterns of habitat usage on hard-bottom habitats near Cape Fear, North
Carolina. Numerous previous studies have examined the use and efficacy of underwater video
techniques (e. g.: Cappo et al., 2004; Gledhill et al., 1996; Harvey et al., 2007; Harvey et al.,
2003; Pfister and Goulet, 1999). Underwater video techniques are practical because the
recordings are a less intrusive, non-extractive method of data collection that reduces diver affects
and observer bias that can arise with other collection methods (reviewed in Harvey et al., 2004).
Video recordings are also valuable because they represent data on a permanent record that allows
the opportunity to measure more variables from a given data set (Cappo et al., 2007) and to
revisit historical data. The collection of video data also, to a large degree, removes the need for
field deployment of scientific specialists, and provides an exciting “product” for use in
communicating science to stakeholders and the general public (see attached video summary).
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

The biology and behavior of fish species of interest are important for determining the
underwater video techniques most appropriate for the survey methodology (Willis et al., 2000).
This is especially true for baited underwater video techniques which are needed to offset biases
introduced by changes in fish behavior (Willis et al., 2000). Baited video observation has been
successfully used to document large, mobile species, including members of the snapper-grouper
complex (Langlois, 2006; Rand et al., 2006) in the past. In contrast, Posey and Ambrose (1994)
found that non-baited cameras may be less intrusive than baited camera systems since the
absence of bait ensures that there will be no effective change in fish behavior regarding feeding.
There are trade-offs to using non-baited video techniques including greater field time and more
expensive equipment to ensure that statistically testable data is collected (Posey and Ambrose,
1994).
This pilot project was designed to use underwater video data collection to document the
presence/absence, estimated size, density, and temporal habitat usage of gag grouper
(Mycteroperca microlepis) on shallow water, hard-bottom habitats on the continental shelf of
North Carolina, and to compare the video findings to diver visual surveys of groupers at the
same locations. Additional information was collected on other species of observed groupers,
including primarily scamp (M. phenax) and yellowmouth grouper (M. interstitialis). Recent
stock assessments for the Atlantic gag grouper indicated that the species is experiencing
overfishing and noted that there is lack of fishery-independent abundance data for southern
North Atlantic gag (SEDAR10 Review Workshop, 2007), indicating a need for additional
monitoring of this species for future stock assessments and management recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study sites
Video locations were chosen from a private database of known hard-bottom locations (J.
Atack and C. Andrews, personal communication) and also included established MARMAP
sampling sites in the depth range of 23 – 35 m (Figure 1). Sampling sites included previously
visited and unvisited locations by the study authors. Factors used to select sites for each field
day included recent local conditions, such as prevailing wind and wave forecasts, recent reports
of bottom visibility, satellite imaging (SST composites and chlorophyll a 1 km resolution
composites) and elapsed time since the last visit. In general, these sites were 48 – 65 km SE of
Cape Fear (N 33° 50' 38" W 77° 57' 43") and included two representative bottom types (Figure
2). “Ledge” areas consisted of high-relief outcrops of limestone substrate, “live-bottom” areas of
relatively low relief, extensive hard substrate heavily colonized by benthic fauna and flora
(Blackwelder et al., 1982; Parker Jr., 1990; Sedberry and Van Dolah, 1984; Wenner et al., 1983).
Live bottom areas generally had less than 1 m of sloping vertical relief, while ledge sites
generally possessed greater than 1.5 - 2 m of topographic relief, and had numerous undercut
ledges and areas of complex bathymetry (see attached video summary). Chosen sites were
visited one to four times each during the period June 2008 – January 2009. At each of the sites a
detailed log of dive personnel, water parameters, topographic descriptions, and diver observed
fish counts were compiled (Figure 3).

4
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Video cameras and housings

Video cameras used in this study consisted of a pair of Sony HDR-SR11 60GB High
Definition (HD) Handycam® Camcorders (Sony Electronics, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri) (Table
1) fitted with 0.5× wide angle lenses. Underwater video housings were Light & Motion Stingray
HD Underwater Video Housings for Sony cameras (Backscatter Underwater Photo and Video,
Monterey, California) (Table 2). Each of the housing and camera units were mounted on a
custom made stand constructed of drilled PVC tubing and marine starboard (Figure 4). Dive
weights (1.8 – 6.8 kg [4 – 15 lb) attached under the stand were used to hold the camera in place
at the dive locations and elevated the camera housing approximately 25 cm from the
surroundings.

Camera deployments and diver visual surveys

Upon arrival and anchoring at a suitable dive site, a pair of SCUBA divers descended using
the anchor line and identified an appropriate location for setting up the camera. Conditions
considered acceptable for filming included bottom visibility greater than 25 ft (estimated),
appropriate structural habitat (ledge/live-bottom), and a secure anchorage to ensure equipment
retrieval.
While the camera operator chose a location and deployed the stand the second diver
conducted a 2 minute visual census of all groupers visible from the camera location
(Colvocoresses and Acosta, 2007). Each fish was assigned an estimated size category (< 12”, 12
– 18”, 18 – 24”, 24 – 30”, > 30”), and these data were recorded on dive slates and transferred to
the dive log book (Figure 3) upon completion of the dive.
The census diver would then assist in camera positioning and deployment by placing size
and distance markers, and, when used, bait or chum. Size marker targets of measured lengths of
floating PVC pipe (either 51 or 61 cm [20 or 24 in] length) were placed 6.1 m (20 ft) from the
camera in order to give a known size marker for estimating lengths of distant fish (see attached
video summary). On a few occasions the size marker was placed at a distance other than 6.1 m,
and the diver signaled the distance during setup in the video.
In some videos approximately 2-3 L of shrimp heads or lobster parts were used as a forage
fish attractant. In some cases the bait was deployed as a frozen block accessible to feeding fish,
and in other cases it was contained within a chum pot. After set-up the stationary video camera
apparatus was left by the diver team for durations ranging from 18 to 90 min. At the end of the
stationary video period a diver team would retrieve the equipment and return to the boat. In
some cases a short swimming transect was conducted, however these were of variable length,
swimming speed, and area, and were not used for data analysis.

Video data collection

Video data from each dive were transferred from the Sony Handycam® HDR-SR11 and
encoded in SD (standard definition) format on 4.7 Gb DVD discs for data collection and archival
storage. These discs are compatible with home DVD players and computer DVD drives, and are
viewable in standard video player software (e. g. Windows Media Player, Apple Quicktime). In
order to generate the most usable information from each dive video the entire video clip was
watched and all groupers were noted. Videos were observed separately by three individuals (E.
J. Burge, B. M. Binder, L. E. Bohrer; Coastal Carolina University) who then met weekly to
compare results within video clips and review the findings. Each grouper observed was recorded
in a standardized data sheet constructed in Microsoft Excel 2003 (Figure 5). Data recorded

5
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

included time code (H:MM:SS) (what time in the video the grouper was seen), grouper species,
categorical size estimate, size estimate (inches), repeat likelihood code, and a note with
information pertaining to behavior, other species of interest, or movements of divers.
Categorical size estimates were assigned based on a scale 1 – 5, while repeat likelihood codes
ranged from 0 – 5 (Table 3). Repeat likelihood codes were designed to account for recounting of
the same fish within videos. Fish observations assigned codes 4 or 5 were presumed to represent
fish that could be eliminated from the final data analysis. These variables were used as a
measure for abundance and estimated size and densities. Habitat notes such as visibility,
macroalgal cover, relief, and notable area characteristics were also recorded.
After all grouper observations were compiled from all of the available video clips (n = 51; 6
dives did not result in collected video because of technical or field issues), each of the video clips
was subjected to a decision tree and determined to meet criteria for inclusion in the study (Figure
6). Video clips meeting all criteria (n = 34) were used in the final analysis. Stated objectives of
the project included conducting 48 surveys, with half of those being revisited monthly for the
duration of the study. A smaller number of sites were able to be revisited than originally
anticipated, and none with the frequency outlined in the original proposal. Effects due to
Hurricane Bertha (mid – late July 2008), Tropical Strom Cristobal (late July 2008), which
formed off of the Carolinas, and Tropical Storm Hanna (late August – early September 2008),
which made landfall very close to the study locations, affected filming for approximately 12
weeks and disrupted the repetitive sampling originally proposed. Funded projects of longer
duration (1 – 2 years) would be better able to accommodate these types of delays. Due to these
unexpected circumstances each survey visit was considered as a unique site for analysis.
Final video analysis consisted of collecting data as noted above for a 15 minute interval that
began 3 minutes after the presence of divers in the area ceased. This was determined by divers
leaving and not reappearing, cessation of audible breathing sounds, and no evidence of diver
influence on fish behavior within view. Fish behavior appeared to return to normal within 1
minute of diver departure (personal observation). In the original request for funds a video
interval of 10 minutes was suggested for data collection, with 10 minute periods before and after
the data collection window (30 minutes video per site). Full viewings of all videos were
conducted and this method of data collection was found to not be workable. In many cases the
presence of divers lasted longer than 10 minutes at the beginning and video length was also
highly variable.
During the 15 minute interval, values designated MaxNgag and MaxNscamp were calculated.
MaxN refers to the relative density of fishes based on the maximum number of individuals of
each species visible at one time on the video, and has been used in other similar studies (Watson
et al., 2005; Willis et al., 2000). This MaxN relative density value provides a conservative
estimate, and most probably an underestimate, of the number of fish in the area.

Data analyses
Statistical methods used for data analysis were conducted in R (v. 2.5.1; http://www.r-
project.org/) and SigmaStat v. 3.11.0 (Systat Software, Inc., Chicago, Illinois). For these
analyses the data were not assumed to be normally distributed, and as such, methods used in this
report are non-parametric in nature. Alpha values considered significant were α ≤ 0.05. The
Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test for differences in mean number of observed fish based
on categorical variables such as habitat, bait, or sector of occurrence. Chi-Square tests (χ2) for
independence were used to test for evidence of a relationship between two categorical variables.

6
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

There are not any distributional assumptions placed on the χ2 test and hence it was appropriate in
this setting. In order to obtain a linear model for the total count of fish based on a quantitative
variable (visibility, depth, temperature), it was not possible to use simple linear regression due to
the fact that the response variables were not continuous. For count data in this report, Poisson
regression and Spearman’s r for nonparametric analyses were used for correlations. Spatial
mapping of data used ArcMap v. 9.2 (ESRI Inc., Redlands, California) and shoreline data images
from http://coastalgeospatial.noaa.gov/shoreline.html.

RESULTS

Inclusion of dives in data collection

A total of 57 dives between 8 June 2008 and 3 January 2009 were conducted (Figure 7).
Some locations corresponded to previous MARMAP sampling locations, although some visited
MARMAP locations did not have the habitat complexity desirable for this study and no data was
collected (see Figure 1). This project was originally planned to include monthly repeated visits
to four sites (6 months project duration, 24 total surveys) in order to evaluate seasonal changes in
grouper species, while the remaining 24 video surveys were planned to occur at unique sites.
Repeated visits to representative sites were hampered due to weather and equipment problems,
and after the exclusion of videos due to technical issues (Table 4) repetitive site visits were
considered as independent surveys.
Of the n = 57 dives conducted, deployment of the camera was deemed not worthwhile or
technical difficulties precluded video collection for six sites. Of the 51 camera deployments, low
visibility resulted in the exclusion of eight video clips from data analysis. Of the remaining 43
video clips, nine were excluded because they were too brief to allow for a data collection
window of 15 minutes after the departure of divers. A 15 minute interval for video data
collection balanced collecting larger numbers of grouper observations per video with including
the largest number of total video clips. Reducing the observation interval window to 10 minutes
would have resulted in the inclusion of one additional video clip (filmed 1 November 2008; dive
number 20, Figure 7), but inclusion of this dive would have resulted in removal of 5 minutes of
footage from all other videos, a loss of 2.8 h of total analyzed video time.

General video observations of groupers

Observations of the 15 minute intervals from all 34 usable video clips (8.5 h) resulted in
inclusive, potentially redundant counts of 760 scamp (Mycteroperca phenax), 115 gag (M.
microlepis), 33 yellowmouth (M. interstitialis), 27 graysby (Cephalopholis cruentatus), 13 red
grouper (Epinephelus morio), nine rock hind (E. adscensionis), two goliath grouper (E. itajara),
and six unidentified serranids. Total counts uncorrected for variable lengths of video clips (24.6
h), and uncorrected for recounting of individuals were 1813 scamp, 305 gag, 97 yellowmouth
grouper and 118 individuals of other serranid species.

Video count data and inferred minimum population sizes (MaxN)

Because sample sizes for species other than scamp and gag were small, MaxN values were
only calculated for these two species. These values were used to evaluate the absolute minimum
number of fish present at the dive location. Sums of MaxNscamp (= 125) and MaxNgag (= 32)

7
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

represented 18.4 and 27.8 % of all observed individuals of these species during the 15 minute
video data collection intervals. For those fish of each species seen simultaneously on the screen
of the stationary video at any given time during the 15 minute observation window, the MaxN
inferred minimum population sizes by location ranged from 1 - 4 gag and 1 - 13 scamp.
Observations outside of the 15 minute window indicate that gag grouper could be more abundant
than these minimum population estimates, with MaxNgag more than twice as high as that
recorded during the window, higher MaxN values were also obtained for videos viewed in high
definition (see Discussion).

Diver point counts

Diver point counts (2 minutes) also likely represent a non-redundant counting method as the
diver is able to more accurately track, and not recount, moving fish within the field of view,
compared to the stationary video camera. For the two primary species 402 scamp and 390 gag
were observed by divers during the 2 minute intervals at all usable video locations (n = 34, 68
minutes total observation), which is slightly higher than the totals using the 15 minute video
observations. Population sizes by location estimated from this counting method range between 1
– 40 scamp and 0 – 50 gag. No other species of groupers were noted during the diver point
counts at the usable video sites, except for red grouper, which were occasionally observed on
some dives, and were not expected to be abundant because of their different geographical
distribution. Comparisons between the various counting techniques indicate that there is a
significant degree of correlation (Spearman’s r for nonparametric analysis; Table 5) between the
techniques, especially for scamp (Figure 8).

Relationships between physical parameters measured and grouper counts

Visibility estimates for all usable videos were based on mean values determined by on-site
divers and video observers (Figure 9). There was a significant positive correlation (Spearman’s
rank correlation r = 0.637; p < 0.001) between the different estimated visibilities and as such
these values were averaged to provide a reasonable estimation of visibility for each site. Total
observed grouper numbers recorded during the 15 minute data collection interval did not differ
(Poisson regression model, p = 0.7740) due to changes in visibility (Figure 10) once low
visibility videos (< 25 ft) were excluded (data not shown). Habitat depth did not significantly
affect grouper counts (Poisson regression model, p = 0.4050) for gag and scamp groupers over
the sampled depth interval of 23 – 35 m (Figure 11). Water temperatures varied seasonally over
the course of the study and a significant, negative correlation (Poisson regression, p < 0.001)
existed between water temperatures (° C) and total numbers of observed gags and scamps
(Figure 12).

Effect of baiting, geography, habitat type, and date of sampling on grouper counts
Bait or chum (shrimp or lobster heads) was used as a forage fish attractant on 18 of 34 video
collection dives. The gags and scamps observed in the 15 minute video counts did not differ
significantly with the presence of bait (Wilcoxon test, p = 0.9037) and the range in numbers of
fish for each treatment (baited, n = 18, range, 5 – 67 fish; unbaited, n = 16, range, 2 – 69 fish)
were highly similar (Figure 13) with the baiting protocol used in this project.
Data by location for gag and scamp were compared by segregating dive sites north and east
of Frying Pan Tower from those south and west of this location. These sectors roughly
correspond to the oceanographic break that occurs at Frying Pan Shoal and separates Long Bay

8
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

from Onslow Bay. Comparison of grouper counts of gags and scamps in aggregate (video
counts; Figure 14) were not significantly different between these sectors (Wilcoxon test, p =
0.8592). Numbers of fish varied substantially between sites regardless of the counting method
used. Total inclusive video counts, which possibly represent an overestimate of fish in the
immediate area, may be representative of a larger area than that seen in the video frame since the
camera only records a portion of the sphere surrounding it. Fish recounts in the field of view
may be offset by groupers in the immediate area that do not enter the field of view.
Supporting evidence for this is drawn from the diver visual survey results which utilized
360° views and recorded similar numbers of gag and scamp in aggregate. MaxN values
indicated minimum population sizes at each location and tended to be dominated by scamp
(Figure 15). Diver point counts suggested that scamp and gag numbers were similar across all
sites, although they varied substantially between sites (Figure 16).
Counts of video observed groupers were tested to evaluate habitat usage by the most
numerous grouper species. Individual dive videos were categorized as “ledge” (n = 18) or “live-
bottom” (n = 16) habitats based on diver notes and video observations. Total observed gags and
scamps in aggregate did not differ significantly between the habitat classifications (Wilcoxon
test, p = 0.3598; Figure 17), however when considered separately by species, gag grouper were
significantly more commonly associated with live-bottom habitats (χ2 test of independence, p <
0.001; Figure 18). This could be due to the fact that the live bottom areas offer less cover and
gag would be more visible than in ledge locations that offer overhead cover. There were several
instances where classification of the site was determined by the filming direction and the filming
structure since the surrounding structure supported both habitat classifications.
Total observed numbers of gag and scamp varied substantially from month to month (Figure
19), although there were large differences in the numbers of usable videos for different months.
There was a general trend toward increasing numbers of both species into the winter months,
with the maximum number of scamps recorded during November and December 2008 dives, and
the maximum number of gags observed in early January 2009. As noted (Table 4) it was not
possible to revisit sites on a consistent basis, and so trends in abundance at the same sites during
the study period could not be evaluated.

Size distribution of major grouper species

Each observed grouper was assigned an estimated size and estimated size category (Table 3)
based on three independent video observers. Consensus estimates were reached by agreement
between video observers. Size distributions differed significantly for the three most common
species (Figure 20), respectively scamp, gag, and yellowmouth grouper (χ2 test of independence,
p = 0.00049). Video observation only rarely identified fish < 12” (size category 1; 10 fish
counted of 2215 total observations). The dominant estimated size category for scamp were
group 3 (18 – 24”), group 4 (24 – 30”) for gag, and group 4 for yellowmouth grouper. Size
categories for all three species were normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for
normality; scamp, K-S Dist. = 0.343, p = 0.055; gag, K-S Dist. = 0.228, p > 0.200; yellowmouth,
K-S Dist. = 0.191, p > 0.200). Size distributions for scamp and gag recorded by diver visual
point counts (n = 34) differed from video observed size classes in that scamp were most
commonly identified as group 2 (12 – 18”), while gag were most commonly identified as group 3
(18 – 24”) (Figure 21).

9
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE 1. Technical specifications of Sony cameras (HDR-SR11 with 60 GB hard drive) used for video
collection.
Formats Supported HD: MPEG4 AVC/H.264; SD: MPEG2
Video
Video Signal NTSC color, EIA standards
Weights and Dimensions 83 × 76 × 138 mm
Measurements Weight 650 g with Battery
Lens Type Carl Zeiss® Vario-Sonnar® T
35mm Equivalent 49 - 588mm
Aperture F 1.8 - 3.1
Digital Zoom 150x
Filter Diameter 37 mm
Optics/Lens
Focal Distance 4.9 - 58.8 mm
Focus Full range auto / Manual
Shutter Speed Auto, 1/30 - 1/250 (Scene Selection Mode)
Optical Zoom 12x
Wide-angle Lens 0.5x Camera mounted
Imaging Device 1/3" ClearVid™ CMOS sensor (with Exmor™ technology)
General Processor BIONZ™ image processor
Recording Media 60 GB Hard Disk Drive, Memory Stick Duo™ Media
Battery Type InfoLITHIUM® with AccuPower™ Meter System (NP-FH60)
Power Power Requirements 7.2V (battery pack); 8.4V (AC Adaptor)
Power Consumption 4.5W/4.8W/4.9W
Audio Audio Format Dolby® Digital 5.1

10
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

TABLE 2. Technical specifications of Light & Motion Stingray HD

Underwater Video Housing.
Construction Marine-grade Aluminum, Anodized, Depth Rated 300 ft
Weight 7 lb
Dimensions 9.5 × 7.2 × 6"
Multi-Camera Tray Compatible with Sony HD cameras
2.7" Monitor Back: AA battery powered
Glass Zoom-Through front
Ergonomic Non-Penetrating Electronic Camera Controls
Self-Locking Rotating Latches
Double O-ring Seals Monitor Back and Lenses
Records Photos to Memory Stick
Standard Features
Ergonomic Grips
Easy-Load Self-Locking Camera Tray
Moisture/Leak alarm
Color Correction filter
Integrated Design for Battery Pods/Weight Brackets
Quick Disconnect Mounts for Lights
Record Indicator Light
Power On/Off
Record/Standby
Zoom/Telephoto
Auto-focus On/Off
Depth Controls
Auto-focus Lock
Momentary Auto-focus
Video/Photo Mode
Manual Focus

TABLE 3. Data coding for categorical size estimates and likelihood of recount bins.
Size Code Size Category Recount Code Recount Category
0 unknown
1 < 12" 1 not
2 12 - 18" 2 unlikely
3 18 - 24" 3 possible
4 24 - 30" 4 probable
5 > 30" 5 definite

11
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

TABLE 4 Repeated site visits and outcomes of collected video.

2
Site location Outcome
Included in Reason for
Dive #
1
Revisits Latitude Longitude Date of visit study data exclusion3
1 33 27 77 40 8 Jun 2008 Yes
3 3 33 27 77 40 20 Jun 2008 Yes
18 33 32 77 25 1 Nov 2008 No Low visibility
2 33 29 77 25 20 Jun 2008 No Low visibility
33 33 27 77 39 23 Nov 2008 Yes
4
40 33 48 77 37 17 Dec 2008 No Low visibility
49 33 27 77 46 3 Jan 2009 Yes
4 33 46 77 31 12 Jul 2008 No No video
17 3 33 21 77 40 1 Nov 2008 No No video
48 33 17 77 46 3 Jan 2009 Yes
23 33 21 77 40 17 Aug 2008 Yes
38 3 33 30 77 15 24 Nov 2008 No Low visibility
47 33 17 77 47 30 Dec 2008 Yes
10 33 32 77 28 17 Aug 2008 No Video length
26 3 33 27 77 39 30 Aug 2008 Yes
34 33 46 77 31 23 Nov 2008 No Low visibility
9 33 50 77 16 17 Aug 2008 No Video length
29 3 33 24 77 31 16 Oct 2008 No Video length
44 33 22 77 38 30 Dec 2008 No Video length
1
See Figure 7; 2Latitudes and longitudes are reported as DD MM and are rounded to
3
the nearest minute; Low visibility was defined as estimated values less than 25 ft; No
video indicates that survey divers did not collect video because of low visibility or
camera/housing malfunctions; Video length refers to video surveys less than 18 min
in total length; Blanks indicate that a survey was included in the final analysis

TABLE 5 Correlation analysis (Spearman’s r for non-parametric

analysis) of counting techniques.
Species
Comparison Scamp Gag
r p r p
Video vs. MaxN 0.7590 < 0.0000 0.9544 < 0.0000
Diver vs. MaxN 0.5800 0.0003 0.0815 0.6465
Video vs. Diver 0.5291 0.0013 0.0814 0.9179

12
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

TABLE 6 Species richness and relative frequency of occurrence for all observed fish and elasmobranch
species from all videos. This listing is not limited to videos deemed useful for grouper observation, nor is
it limited to the 15 minute interval of analysis used for grouper counts.
Frequency of Occurence1 Common Name Species2 Family
gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus Balistidae
amberjack Seriola dumerili Carangidae
almaco jack Seriola rivoliana Carangidae
tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum Haemulidae
white grunt Haemulon plumieri Haemulidae
hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus Labridae
Most frequent
Spanish hogfish Bodianus rufus Labridae
vermillion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens Lutjanidae
blue angelfish Holacanthus bermudensis Pomacanthidae
gag Mycteroperca microlepis Serranidae
scamp Mycteroperca phenax Serranidae
knobbed porgy Calamus nodosus Sparidae
spottail pinfish Diplodus holbrookii Sparidae
scads* Decapterus spp. Carangidae
spadefish Chaetodipterus faber Ephippidae
spotfin hogfish Bodianus pulchellus Labridae
bicolor damselfish Stegastes partitus Pomacentridae
Frequent black sea bass Centropristis striata Serranidae
graysby Cephalophis cruentatus Serranidae
sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus Sparidae
jolthead porgy Calamus bajonado Sparidae
saucereye porgy Calamus calamus Sparidae
red porgy Pagrus pagrus Sparidae
ocean surgeonfish Acanthurus bahianus Acanthuridae
doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus Acanthuridae
blue tang Acanthurus coeruleus Acanthuridae
trumpetfish Aulostomus maculatus Aulostomidae
sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus Carcharhinidae
foureye butterflyfish Chaetodon capistratus Chaetodontidae
spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus Chaetodontidae
reef butterflyfish Chaetodon sedentarius Chaetodontidae
banded butterflyfish Chaetodon striatus Chaetodontidae
squirrelfish Holocentrus adscensionis Holocentridae
Less frequent
Bermuda/yellow chub Kyphosus sectatrix/incisor Kyphosidae
planehead filefish Stephanolepis hispudus Monacanthidae
spotted goatfish Pseudupeneus maculatus Mullidae
queen angelfish Holacanthus ciliaris Pomacanthidae
red lionfish Pterois volitans Scorpaenidae
bank sea bass Centropristis ocyurus Serranidae
rock hind Epinephelus adscensionis Serranidae
yellow goatfish Mulloidichthys martinicus Mullidae
red grouper Epinephelus morio Serranidae
yellowmouth grouper Mycteroperca interstitialis Serranidae
great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda Sphyraenidae
bandtail puffer Sphoeroides spengleri Tetraodontidae
queen triggerfish Balistes vetula Balistidae
African pompano Alectis ciliaris Carangidae
carcharinid sharks* Carcharhinus spp. Carcharhinidae
stingrays* Dasyatis spp. Dasyatidae
remoras* Echeneis spp. Echeneidae
cornetfish Fistularia tabacaria Fistularidae
smooth butterfly ray Gymnura micrura Gymnuridae
porkfish Anistotremus virginicus Haemulidae
blackbar soldierfish Myripristis jacobus Holocentridae
bluehead wrasse Thalassoma bifasciatum Labridae
tautog Tautoga onitis Labridae
red snapper Lutjanus campechanus Lutjanidae
gray snapper Lutjanus griseus Lutjanidae
orangespotted filefish Cantherhines pullus Monacanthidae
moray eels* Gymnothorax spp. Muraenidae
Least frequent
spotted eagle ray Aetobatus narinari Myliobatidae
scrawled cowfish Acanthostracion quadricornis Ostraciidae
trunkfish Lactophyrs trigonus Ostraciidae
southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma Paralichthyidae
rock beauty Holacanthus tricolor Pomacanthidae
gray angelfish Pomacanthus arcuatus Pomacanthidae
French angelfish Pomacanthus paru Pomacanthidae
cobia Rachycentron canadum Rachycentridae
parrotfishes* Scarus spp. Scaridae
jackknife fish Equetus lanceolatus Sciaenidae
king mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla Scombridae
spotted scorpionfish Scorpaena plumieri Scorpaenidae
goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara Serranidae
greater soapfish Rypticus saponaceus Serranidae
red hind Epinephelus guttatus Serranidae
speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi Serranidae
tiger grouper Mycteroperca tigris Serranidae
1
Categories were assigned based on estimates of the frequency of observation of each species among all
videos; most frequent: species present 50-100%, frequent: species present 25-50%, less frequent: species
present 10-25%, least frequent: species present uniquely-10%; 2 Based on classifications presented by
fishbase.org; *Identification to species was not possible or ambiguous.

13
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Figure 1: MARMAP sampling locations (+) and dives completed for this study (open and closed circles).

14
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Underwater video frame captures of representative hard-bottom habitats. Video stills are not as clear as
video footage viewed in real time. (a) Ledge habitat greater than 2 m in relief is visible in the foreground and
background. (b) Representative live-bottom habitat with extensive macroalgal and benthic invertebrate cover.

15
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Figure 3: Example of a survey dive logbook entry. Physical data was accessed from the National Data Buoy Center,
Station 41013 (33°26'11" N 77°44'35" W) Frying Pan Shoals, NC, for the date and time that most closely matched
the actual dive time based on hourly updates (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ station_page.php?station=41013).

16
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Figure 4: Views of the Light & Motion Stingray HD Underwater Video Housing, (a) forward, lateral (b) rear
monitor (c) and custom made stand for field deployment. Photos (a) and (b) from www.backscatter.com.

17
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Figure 5: Example of data entry system for observations.

18
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Camera deployed at site, n = 57

Field
No Yes
No video Camera worked, video
collected, n = 51
Yes No
Est. visibility > No video
25 ft, n = 43

No Yes Lab

Video excluded Video length >

from analysis 18 min, n = 34
Yes No
Video included in Video
final analysis excluded from
analysis

Figure 6: Decision tree applied to all site videos to determine inclusion in final data analysis. The large boxes
indicated Field and Lab refer to where the decision on data collection occurred. Of the n = 57 dives conducted,
deployment of the camera was deemed not worthwhile for six sites (n = 51). Of the 51 camera deployments low
visibility resulted in the exclusion of eight video clips (n = 43). Of the remaining 43 video clips, nine were excluded
because they were to brief to allow for a data collection window of 15 minutes after the departure of divers.

19
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Figure 7: All survey dive locations. See the Appendix data for information on dates corresponding to each dive
number.

20
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

(a) (b)
70 50
Total observed scamp, 15 min

Total observed gag, 15 min

60 40
50
30
40
20
30
10
20

10 0

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5
MaxNscamp MaxNgag
(c) (d)
50 35
Diver point count scamp, 2 min

Diver point count gag, 2 min

30
40
25
30
20

20 15

10
10
5
0
0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5
MaxNscamp MaxNgag

Figure 8: A comparison of counting methods for the two most abundant grouper species observed, scamp and gag.
a) and b) compare total observed individuals with the maximum number of fish of that species visible
simultaneously (MaxN) during the 15 minute interval. c) and d) compare the diver point counts to MaxN values.

21
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

22

20
Visibility estimated from video (m)

18

16

14

12

10

4
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Visibility estimated by divers (m)

Figure 9: Comparison of visibility estimates (feet converted to meters) made by divers on-site (n = 2-4) and from
video clips analyzed by others (n = 3). A high correlation (Spearman’s rank correlation r = 0.637; p < 0.001) was
found between the different observations. Visibility was one parameter which affected whether a video was
included for the analysis (see Figure 6), such that only distances greater than 25 ft were considered adequate for
video data collection.

22
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

80
Total groupers observed, 15 min

60

40

20

6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Estimated visibility (m)

Figure 10: Estimated visibility (m), calculated as the mean of estimates taken from video observers and diver
participants, compared to the count of observed groupers during the 15 minute video interval. A Poisson regression
model found insufficient evidence of a relationship between visibility and number of visible fish (p = 0.7740).

23
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

80

70
Total groupers observed, 15 min

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Dive depth (m)

Figure 11: Total counts of scamp and gag groupers during the 15 minute video interval compared to the depth at
which the video was recorded. Based on Poisson regression methods to predict presence of fish, there is insufficient
evidence of a relationship between depth and the number of visible fish (p = 0.4050).

24
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Total groupers observed, 15 min 80

60

40

20

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Bottom water temperature (° C)

Figure 12: Relationship between grouper counts for scamp and gag based on bottom water temperatures. Bottom
water temperatures were recorded by the dive computers of diver participants in the study. A significant negative
correlation between total counts and temperature was observed (Poisson regression, p < 0.001).

25
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

80
Total groupers observed (15 min)

60

40

20

Unbaited Baited
Figure 13: Box plots illustrating the effects of the presence of bait or chum (2 - 3 L of shrimp shells or lobster parts)
on counts of total observed groupers. A Wilcoxon test showed insignificant evidence of a difference in the average
number of fish between locations with and without bait (p = 0.9037). The boundary of the box closest to zero
indicates the 25th percentile, a line within the box marks the median, and the boundary of the box farthest from zero
indicates the 75th percentile. Whiskers (error bars) above and below the box indicate the 90th and 10th percentiles
and filled circles are outliers.

26
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Figure 14: GIS plot of the spatial distribution of scamp and gag recorded from 15 minute video surveys. Scamp
significantly outnumbered observations of gag grouper (Wilcoxon test for scamp vs. gag, p < 0.001). Scale bars are
proportional by size to 33 fish.

27
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Figure 15: GIS plot of the spatial distribution of scamp and gag as MaxN estimates of population abundance
(Wilcoxon test for scamp vs. gag, p < 0.001). Scale bars are proportional by size to 6.5 fish.

28
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Figure 16: GIS plot of the spatial distribution of scamp and gag as diver point count estimates of population
abundance (2 min). Scamp and gag numbers are not significantly different (Wilcoxon test for scamp vs. gag, p =
0.3199). Scale bars are proportional by size to 26 fish.

29
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Total groupers observed, 15 min 80

60

40

20

Live-bottom Ledge
(<1 m relief) (>1.5 m relief)
Habitat type

Figure 17: Box plots illustrating the distribution of groupers observed in the 15 minute video interval on two
qualitative habitat types. Habitat categories are based on descriptions in (Blackwelder et al., 1982; Grimes et al.,
1982; Parker Jr. and Dixon, 1998; Sedberry and Van Dolah, 1984). A Wilcoxon rank-sum test for differences
between median values indicated that there was no relationship between total observed scamps and gags and habitat
type (p = 0.3598). The boundary of the box closest to zero indicates the 25th percentile, a line within the box marks
the median, and the boundary of the box farthest from zero indicates the 75th percentile. Whiskers (error bars) above
and below the box indicate the 90th and 10th percentiles and filled circles are outliers.

30
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

50
Total fish observed, 15 min (mean ± SD)

Ledge
Live-bottom

40

30

20

10

0
Scamp Gag

Species
Figure 18: In aggregate total observed fish did not differ between habitats (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p = 0.3598),
however a χ2 test of independence provided significant evidence of a relationship between gag and habitat (ledge or
live-bottom) (p < 0.001), suggesting that gag groupers were more frequently observed over live-bottom habitats.
Habitat categories are based on descriptions from several studies (Blackwelder et al., 1982; Grimes et al., 1982;
Parker Jr. and Dixon, 1998; Sedberry and Van Dolah, 1984).

31
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

60
Total observed fish, 15 min (mean ± SD)
Scamp
Gag
50

40

30

20

10

0
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
n=2 n=0 n=5 n=0 n=4 n = 10 n=8 n=5
Study Month

Figure 19: Distribution of groupers by species and sampling months. Bars represent mean ± SD for each species
from all usable dives conducted during that month. Usable dive numbers are indicated as n = x. Attempted trips in
July and September did not result in usable video due to poor visibility.

32
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

3.5
Gag
Scamp
log10 (Total observed fish, 15 min)

3.0 Yellowmouth

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
<12" 12"-<18" 18"-<24" 24"-<30" >30"

Size Category (in)

Figure 20: Individual observed grouper were speciated and assigned to an estimated size category (Table 3) based on
video observation. The three most numerous species observed were scamp (n = 1813), gag (n = 305), and
yellowmouth (n = 97) groupers. A χ2 test of independence provided significant evidence of a relationship between
size of the individual and species of grouper (p = 0.00049).

33
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

200
Scamp
180
Gag

160
Diver point counts, 2 min

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
< 12" 12 - 18" 18 - 24" 24 - 30" > 30"

Size category (in)

Figure 21: Size category distribution of scamp and gag recorded from diver visual point counts of 2 minute during
each dive (n = 34).

34
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

(a)

(b)

Figure 22: Video frame captures illustrating difficulties associated with grouper species identification and recount
frequency. Video stills are not as clear as video footage viewed in real time. Frames were taken six minutes apart
from a dive conducted 23 November 2008 and show co-occurring scamp and yellowmouth grouper. A 24” length
estimation marker (vertical bar in the center of frame) is visible. (a) Two scamp grouper are visible on the far right
(top, light fish) and (bottom, dark fish) and an adult yellowmouth grouper is visible on the bottom center. (b) Scamp
and yellowmouth are visible in the left top of the frame. Comparing (a) and (b) it is not clear whether the
yellowmouth groupers, seen minutes apart on the same video, are the same fish.

35
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

(a)

(b)

Figure 23a: Near simultaneous (< 1 s due to differences in viewer software) video screen captures illustrating (a)
standard definition (SD; .mpg encoding) and (b) high definition (HD; .m2ts encoding) resolution differences. Video
stills are not as clear as video footage viewed in real time. Relative image width is also different between SD and
HD video players. Data collection utilized SD DVDs and resulted in some fish, especially distant ones, being
unidentified. HD video collection results in higher fish counts, especially at the edge of visibility due to crisper
silhouettes of fish. This figure is best viewed at higher magnification (200% or higher).

36
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

(c)

(d)

Figure 23b: Near simultaneous (< 1 s due to differences in viewer software) video screen captures illustrating (c)
standard definition (SD; .mpg encoding) and (d) high definition (HD; .m2ts encoding) resolution differences. Video
stills are not as clear as video footage viewed in real time. Relative image width is also different between SD and
HD video players. Data collection utilized SD DVDs and resulted in some fish, especially distant ones, being
unidentified. Arrows in (c) indicate gag grouper counted from SD video. Arrows in (d) indicate total gag present.
HD video collection results in higher fish counts, especially at the edge of visibility due to crisper silhouettes of fish.
This figure is best viewed at higher magnification (200% or higher).

37
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

DISCUSSION

Primary objectives of this pilot project included using underwater stationary video surveys to
document the presence/absence, estimated size, density, and temporal habitat usage of gag
grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis) on shallow water, hard-bottom habitats on the continental
shelf of North Carolina. Other important objectives included comparing video findings to diver
visual surveys of groupers to investigate the use of underwater videos to augment fishery-
independent surveys. As a pilot project, this study demonstrated that underwater stationary
video techniques can record large numbers of groupers in a non-extractive way. The addition of
this technique to MARMAP (or similar) fishery-independent surveys has the potential to be very
valuable. For example, video numbers could be compared to extractive methods for grouper
species at appropriate sampling locations and/or intervals (see discussion in Sedberry and Van
Dolah, 1984).
Video observation of fishes for this project had both unique advantages and disadvantages
when compared to a more traditional population assessment for large, mobile bottom fish, such
as gag and scamp groupers. Extractive methods like angling, trawling and trapping provide
accurate size, weight, and age measurements, and can have reduced post-survey laboratory
analyses (Willis et al., 2000). Video surveys involve substantial field time, along with a large
amount of post-survey laboratory time to analyze videos (depending on fish density), but
generally need less personnel than other methods. More often than not, the greatest limitations
with video surveys include low water visibility (Cappo et al., 2007). Nevertheless, video surveys
can simplify data collection, and require fewer personnel and fewer hours in the field. For
example data collection in the form of video camera deployment and retrieval can be
accomplished quite easily with a minimum of training for qualified SCUBA divers, and
decreases the need for scientific specialists on hand. The use of non-specialists however does
increase the likelihood that sampling protocols may not be closely adhered to and that data
collection methods could change unexpectedly. These problems can be minimized by additional
training in quality data collection.
Data analysis of collected videos requires a significant time investment post-collection. On
average, video observation and data recording in this study took three times the length of the
collected video and it was desirable to have multiple observers for each video segment that
would meet to compare findings. Experience in fish identification and size estimation was also
very important. Both underwater and on video, it was sometimes difficult to differentiate
individuals of different grouper species from each other. This was especially true for small,
demersal groupers, including graysby, rock hind, red hind, speckled hind, juvenile goliath
grouper and juvenile red grouper, because they utilized cover more frequently than larger fish.
Identifications were also sometimes problematic for large scamp and yellowmouth groupers,
which have similar body shapes and habits, and they utilize social and behavioral color changes
(Gilmore and Jones, 1992). Similar difficulties in species identification between gag and black
groupers (M. bonaci) have been reported previously (Chih, 2006). Yellowmouth groupers made
up 4.3 % (33 yellowmouth/760 scamp) of the total number of scamp seen on video, and they
always co-occurred in videos (Figure 22), but no yellowmouth groupers were recorded by the
diver point count methods, likely because divers were not instructed to identify yellowmouth as a
separate species. The highest MaxNyellowmouth recorded was two (data not shown).
A minimum visibility of 6.1 m (25 ft) was necessary for video data collection to be feasible.
It is unlikely that this variable is a consideration when using extractive fishing methods such as

38
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

hook and line, trawl, or trapping capture for the same species of groupers, although the effects of
visibility on CPUE are probably relevant. Size estimations made in this study may be open to
challenge, but they were completed with multiple, experienced observers to decrease size
estimation biases. Previous work by others has shown that fish observers can routinely over- and
underestimate certain size classes of fish (Bell et al., 1985; Edgar et al., 2004; Harvey et al.,
2004), including the common size classes used here for categorizing grouper populations. It is
possible to accurately size fish in situ, although these techniques were not applied in this specific
project. For example, laser measurements aimed from the film housing by a swimming diver can
be used for sizing, as can stereo-video apparatus for stationary video. Other authors have
eliminated diver or video estimation biases by deploying calibrated stereo-video systems that
allow automated sizing of fish (Dunbrack, 2006; Harvey et al., 2003; Harvey et al., 2002; Harvey
et al., 2001; Harvey, 2003; van Rooij and Videler, 1996). Stereo-video techniques support more
accurate and precise data collection of fish size, but increase costs due to the need for multiple
cameras, and require more specialized scientific support for calibration and successful operation
of stereo-video camera systems.
With the video techniques and data collection methods used in this study it was not possible
to avoid recounting fish. Substantial efforts were made to account for the problem of recounting
fish, however, the use of a recount likelihood coding system (see Table 3 and Figure 5) was
problematic and attempts to integrate this system into data analysis were eventually discarded.
Primarily this was due to the large differences between video observers in their relative
assignments of the recount categories, and a lack of agreement about how best to apply these
categorizations. Additionally, because data was collected on each video in its entirety, and
subsequently a subset of each usable video (15 min) was extracted for further analysis, the
recount data assignments were no longer valid for each individual fish. Therefore, a decision
was made to incorporate MaxN values into the analyses to provide more conservative estimates
of grouper population densities. These MaxN values represent the minimum number of fish that
were present at any given site on video, because MaxN was calculated by only considering fish
viewed simultaneously on a given video. Our observations suggest that gag grouper were
undercounted with this technique because of their more solitary behaviors, smaller social group
sizes and larger territories (Coleman et al., 1996; Collins, 1987; Gilmore and Jones, 1992; Kiel,
2004).
In discussions between the authors it was discovered that the video encoding step (see
Materials and Methods/Video data collection) used for transferring the large (> 3 Gb) files also
influenced the recorded abundance of gag grouper. The enhanced resolution available when
viewing high-definition (HD) footage increased the number of fish seen (personal observations)
for some, but not all, videos, compared to those viewed in standard-definition (SD), and resulted
in fish being uncounted that were far from the camera (Figure 23). This problem was more
apparent for gag because of their recorded behavioral patterns, propensity to remain distant from
the camera, and difficulty speciating distant fish by their silhouettes. Reviewing HD footage
resulted in increased MaxNscamp, from 1 – 13 to 1 – 16, and MaxNgag from 1 – 4 to 1 – 5 in the 15
minute intervals. This was discovered by watching footage extracted from the cameras in the
native HD (.mt2s) format and comparing fish counts against footage from the same intervals and
recorded in SD (.mpg) on DVD. Undercounting was especially apparent in videos that were
collected with the camera oriented away from vertical structure, out into open water where the
depth of field was substantially larger. Videos that were oriented into or obliquely toward
structure did not have these same issues (personal observations). Since this pilot program was to

39
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

primarily address the viability of video data collection for supplemental stock assessments, HD
versus SD resolutions should be addressed in future video protocols.
Gag numbers were generally expected to increase toward the end of the study as inshore
water temperatures decreased and fish moved to deeper temperature refugia nearer to the shelf
edge and reproductively mature individuals began to make offshore spawning migrations
(McGovern et al., 1998; Sedberry et al., 2006). The video data collected seem to support this
general pattern of migration (Figure 18), and support other studies that have documented these
movement patterns. Behavioral differences between gag and scamp were apparent throughout
the study. Both species tended to be initially curious about the presence of divers and the
camera station, however gag tended to not approach closely and after an initial inspection they
were not repeatedly seen. It appeared that larger gag grouper (> 30”) were more reluctant to
approach divers and the filming area with any frequency. The swimming transects suggested that
the variation seen between diver point surveys and stationary video counts of gag grouper at the
same locations were primarily due to reactions of fish to the presence of divers. Transect line
video data collections may be a viable option for incorporation in future data collection methods
for gag grouper specifically. These observations are anecdotal, but could be evaluated
scientifically in another project. Scamp grouper tended to be much more inquisitive and were
more gregarious in view of the camera. Anecdotal diver observations indicated that size 1 and 2
gag displayed similar behavior to scamp, in contrast to larger (size 3+) gag.
Whitfield et al. (2007) estimated grouper numbers (per hectare [ha-1]) for North Carolina
hard-bottom habitats (30 – 45 m) using diver visual surveys and reported gag abundances of 18
ha-1, scamp of 60 ha-1, and yellowmouth grouper at 8 ha-1. Densities recorded in this study are
not directly comparable to those values, due to the differing area of hard-bottom “sampled” in
each video survey. Some camera stations were oriented into structure, providing a relatively
limited area of observation, while other stations were filmed shooting away from structure, and
were essentially only limited by visibility. Future work in this area should focus on accurately
measuring surveyed areas of observation to allow the calculation of relative densities of groupers
by location and time from video surveys. Habitat classifications used in this study were based on
diver notes, personal observations (E. J. Burge) and video observations about the area in view. It
was frequently the case that a survey location contained areas that could be defined as ledge or
live-bottom habitat, depending on the field of view of the camera. Given this it would be
desirable in future surveys to develop a rapid, objective habitat classification scheme.
The diversity of fish species observed using video techniques in this study was large (Table
6). It should be noted that due to the different behavioral patterns of each fish species,
occurrences in the data set may not be an accurate representation of abundance for every species
(MacNeil et al., 2008). For purposes of this report other species outside the commercially
important groupers were not considered, however the video record collected represents a
significant opportunity for datamining estimates of fish diversity, species richness, and
potentially, estimating biomass. Work is underway to examine the fish community in addition to
the grouper data collected in this study and may be of interest considering recent changes in
invasive species introductions (Hare and Whitfield, 2003; Whitfield et al., 2002), fishing efforts
(Miller, 2007), regulations (Federal Register, 2009) and climate change (Parker Jr. and Dixon,
1998) associated with North Carolina hard-bottom habitats. The videos themselves will be
assessed for inclusion in the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute’s Video Annotation and
Reference System (MBARI VARS; http://www.mbari.org/vars/). This research tool is a
software interface and database system for describing, cataloging, retrieving, and viewing data

40
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

associated with video collections. Cataloging of the videos collected in this study is likely to
provide future added value.
This study demonstrated that underwater stationary video surveys for gag grouper can be a
valuable addition to fishery-independent datasets, and development of a scientifically rationale
protocol to implement these techniques is recommended.

IMPACTS AND BENFITS

The methods explored in this project indicate that video data collection is a viable
supplemental assessment for groupers. With a fish species such as the gag grouper that has a
high economic value, it is reasonable to consider alternative methods of data collection that are
as accurate, current, specific and conclusive as possible. Implementation of a similar study,
perhaps in conjunction with existing fishery-independent surveys like MARMAP could be
valuable for use in SEDAR stock assessments for members of the snapper-grouper complex.
Presently, most fishery-independent data on gag grouper are collected at sea by specialists. This
pilot project outlines a methodology that augments traditional sampling methods without fish
extraction and presents an opportunity to expand stock assessments into other areas, including
behavior and multi-species interactions. Conservative biomass estimates suggest that the
groupers observed in this project represented approximately 15,592 lb of fish counted but not
removed from local populations ((1813 scamp × 6 lb/scamp) + (305 gag × 12 lb/gag) + (97
yellowmouth grouper × 6 lb/yellowmouth) + (118 other serranids× 4 lb/serranid) = 15,592 lb
grouper).
Student training has also been a benefit of this project. Seven Coastal Carolina University
marine science undergraduates participated in various aspects of the project. Two students were
heavily involved in collecting data from videos as part of an honor’s thesis and as an independent
research project. One of these students completed her degree and is pursuing graduate work in
fisheries ecology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. The other member of the
video review team is currently participating in a 6 month internship with Dr. Jerrald Ault’s
(University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science) multi-agency reef
fish visual census monitoring in the Florida Keys. Three current CCU undergraduates are
datamining the videos to examine reef fish diversity for independent projects, and two other
students participated as volunteer divers.
The video clips have generated interest and excitement among local fishermen and others
who have seen excerpts of footage. Brunswick Catch (http://www.brunswickcatch.com/), an
association of commercial fishermen, seafood dealers and restaurant owners, has expressed an
interest in using some of the footage as a marketing tool highlighting local North Carolina
seafood.

EXTENSION OF RESULTS

Formal outreach has been limited as research results have only been recently synthesized. A
peer-reviewed manuscript on the findings of this project is planned, and presentation of results to
academic audiences, including NC DMF, the snapper-grouper advisory panel of SAFMC, and
fisheries managers is welcomed. Dr. Burge is scheduled to present general interest seminars on
the project to community groups early in 2010 for the Jackson Center for Ethics at Coastal

41
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Carolina University (“Empty Waters: The Ethics of Marine Conservation,” 4 March 2010,
Conway, SC) and the Grand Strand (SC) Shell Club (8 April 2010, Murrells Inlet, SC). Student
presentations are anticipated for the 2010 Celebration of Inquiry (11-12 February 2010), a
research symposium of undergraduate projects.
To achieve an outreach program directed to the recreational and commercial sector of non-
scientific audiences, preparation of a less technical version of the final report can be submitted to
publications and on-line fishing forums that have agreed to review the project for publication
consideration and posting. These include NC Sportsman Magazine, SC Sportsman Magazine,
NC Wildlife Resources Commission - Wildlife in NC Magazine, South Carolina DNR - SC
Wildlife Magazine, NC Waterman.com, NC Fisheries Association.com, NC CCA.com, The Hull
Truth.com, Spearboard.com, Charleston Diving.com, NC Divers.com, Scuba Board.com, Frying
Pan Tower.com, Charlotte NC Offshore Fishing Club.com and Ocean Isle Fishing Center.com.
There will also be a final report e-mail attachment sent out to over 75 NC coastal charter
captains.

STUDENTS

Student Role Program* Degree

Benjamin M. Binder Video data analysis; volunteer diver Undergraduate, Marine Science in progress
Lauren E. Bohrer Video data analysis Undergraduate, Marine Science BS
Zachery D. Hart Fish identification Undergraduate, Marine Science in progress
Dana E. Putman Fish identification Undergraduate, Marine Science in progress
Amanda C. Wood Fish identification Undergraduate, Marine Science in progress
Brandon M. Toms Volunteer diver Undergraduate, Marine Science in progress
Mark A. Nevin Volunteer diver Undergraduate, Marine Science in progress
Emma K. Wear GIS plots Graduate, Coastal Marine and Wetland Studies MS
*All students are from Coastal Carolina University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge and thank the North Carolina General Assembly and NC Sea
Grant, Fishery Resource Grant program for financial support of this project under grant 08-FEG-
12. We also acknowledge and thank M. Scott Baker, Jr., (Sea Grant Fisheries Specialist,
University of North Carolina Wilmington) for being our project mentor. The following
individuals contributed to this project as volunteer divers: Travis Amstuz, Alan Beasley, Bob
Bellman, Ben Binder, Matt Chappell, Frederick Farzanegan, Bobby Mayfield, Mark Nevin
Leslie Scoggins, and Brandon Toms. Assistance in video data analysis was provided by Ben M.
Binder (Coastal Carolina University) and Lauren E. Bohrer (Coastal Carolina University). Dr.
Keshav Jaggannathan (Coastal Carolina University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics)
was instrumental in data analysis by conducting the statistical tests. Danny Hughes and Kevin
Beasley assisted with the production of the video summary, and Emma Wear (Coastal Carolina
University, Coastal Marine and Wetland Studies) constructed the GIS plots. Dr. George
Sedberry (NOAA, Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary), Dr. Rob Young (Coastal Carolina
University, Department of Marine Science), Dr. John Walter (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC) and
John Foster (NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology) assisted in problematic

42
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

species identifications, and Christopher Neil Ferguson (Coastal Carolina University, Kimbel
Library) assisted with literature research.

LITERATURE CITED

Bell, J.D., Craik, G.J.S., Pollard, D.A., Russell, B.C., 1985. Estimating length frequency
distributions of large reef fish underwater. Coral Reefs 4, 41-44.

Blackwelder, B.W., Macintyre, I.G., Pilkey, O.H., 1982. Geology of continental shelf, Onslow
Bay, North Carolina, as revealed by submarine outcrops. AAPG Bulletin 66, 44-56.

Cappo, M., Harvey, E.S., Shortis, M.R., 2007. Counting and measuring fish with baited video
techniques - an overview. In: Lyle, J.M., Furlani, D.M., Buxton, C.D. (Eds.), "Cutting-edge
technologies in fish and fisheries science," 2006 AFSB Conference and Workshop Australian
Society for Fish Biology, Hobart, Tasmania, 101-114.

Cappo, M., Speare, P., De'ath, G., 2004. Comparison of baited remote underwater video stations
(BRUVS) and prawn (shrimp) trawls for assessments of fish biodiversity in inter-reefal areas of
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 302,
123-152.

Chiappone, M., Sluka, R., Sealey, K.S., 2000. Groupers (Pisces: Serranidae) in fished and
protected areas of the Florida Keys, Bahamas and northern Caribbean. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 198, 261-272.

Chih, C.-P., 2006. SEDAR10-DW-28. Estimation of species misidentification in the commercial

landing data of gag groupers and black groupers in the South Atlantic. Southeast Fisheries
Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution No. SFD-2006-013. 14 pp.

Coleman, F.C., Koenig, C.C., Collins, L.A., 1996. Reproductive styles of shallow-water groupers
(Pisces: Serranidae) in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the consequences of fishing spawning
aggregations. Environmental Biology of Fishes 47, 129-141.

Coleman, F.C., Koenig, C.C., Huntsman, G.R., Musick, J.A., Eklund, A.M., McGovern, J.C.,
Sedberry, G.R., Chapman, R.W., Grimes, C.B., 2000. Long-lived reef fishes: The grouper-
snapper complex. Fisheries 25, 14-21.

Collins, M.R., C.W. Waltz, W.A. Roumillat, D.L. Stubbs, 1987. Contribution to the life history
and reproductive biology of gag, Mycteroperca microlepis (Serranidae), in the South Atlantic
Bight. Fishery Bulletin 85, 648-653.

Colvocoresses, J., Acosta, A., 2007. A large-scale field comparison of strip transect and
stationary point count methods for conducting length-based underwater visual surveys of reef
fish populations. Fisheries Research 85, 130-141.

43
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Dunbrack, R.L., 2006. In situ measurement of fish body length using perspective-based remote
stereo-video. Fisheries Research 82, 327-331.

Edgar, G.J., Barrett, N.S., Morton, A.J., 2004. Biases associated with the use of underwater
visual census techniques to quantify the density and size-structure of fish populations. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 308, 269-290.

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper- Grouper Fishery off
the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 16, Final Rule. Federal Register 74(123). June 29,
2009: 30964-30973. 50 CFR Part 622.

Gilmore, G.R., Jones, R.S., 1992. Color variation and associated behavior in the epinepheline
groupers, Mycteroperca microlepis (Goode and Bean) and M. phenax Jordan and Swain. Bulletin
of Marine Science 51, 83-103.

Gledhill, C.T., Lyczkowski-Shultz, J., Rademacher, K., Kargard, E., Crist, G., Grace, M.A.,
1996. Evaluation of video and acoustic index methods for assessing reef-fish populations. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 53, 483-485.

Grimes, C.B., Manooch, C.S., Huntsman, G.R., 1982. Reef and rock outcropping fishes of the
outer continental shelf of North Carolina and South Carolina, and ecological notes on the red
porgy and vermilion snapper. Bulletin of Marine Science 32, 277-289.

Hare, J.A., Whitfield, P.E., 2003. An Integrated Assessment of the Introduction of Lionfish
(Pterois volitans/miles complex) to the Western Atlantic Ocean. NOAA, National Ocean
Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 2. 31 pp.

Harvey, E., Cappo, M., Butler, J., Hall, N., Kendrick, G., 2007. Bait attraction affects the
performance of remote underwater video stations in assessment of demersal fish community
structure. Marine Ecology Progress Series 350, 245-254.

Harvey, E., Cappo, M., Shortis, M., Robson, S., Buchanan, J., Speare, P., 2003. The accuracy
and precision of underwater measurements of length and maximum body depth of southern
bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) with a stereo-video camera system. Fisheries Research 63, 315-
326.

Harvey, E., Fletcher, D., Shortis, M., 2002. Estimation of reef fish length by divers and by
stereo-video: A first comparison of the accuracy and precision in the field on living fish under
operational conditions. Fisheries Research 57, 255-265.

Harvey, E., Fletcher, D., Shortis, M., Kendrick, G., 2004. A comparison of underwater visual
distance estimates made by scuba divers and a stereo-video system: implications for underwater
visual census of reef fish abundance. Marine and Freshwater Research 55, 573-580.

Harvey, E.S., Fletcher, D., R., S.M., 2001. Improving the statistical power of visual length
estimates of reef fish : Comparison of divers and stereo-video. Fishery Bulletin 99, 63-71.

44
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Harvey, E.S., Shortis, M. R., Stadler, M. and Cappo, M., 2003. A comparison of the accuracy of
measurements from single and stereo-video systems. Marine Technology Society Journal 36, 38-
49.

Heinisch, B.V., Fable Jr., W.A., 1999. Movement of gag, Mycteroperca microlepis, in and from
St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 64, 501-508.

Kiel, B.L., 2004. Homing and spatial use of gag grouper, Mycteroperca microlepis. Master of
Science Thesis. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida. 89 pp.

Langlois, T., Chabanet, P., Pelletier, D. and Harvey, E. H., 2006. Baited underwater video for
assessing reef fish populations in marine reserves. SPC Fisheries Newsletter 118, 53-57.

MacNeil, M.A., N. A. J. Graham, M. J. Conroy, C. J. Fonnesbeck, N. V. C. Polunin, S. P.

Rushton, P. Chabanet, T. R. McClanahan, 2008. Detection heterogeneity in underwater visual-
census data. Journal of Fish Biology 73, 1748-1763.

McGovern, J.C., Wyanski, D.M., Pahuk, O., III, C.S.M., Sedberry, G.R., 1998. Changes in the
sex ratio and size at maturity of gag, Mycteroperca microlepis, from the Atlantic coast of the
southeastern United States during 1976 - 1995. Fishery Bulletin 96, 797-807.

Miller, K.L., 2007. Saving the shallow water gag grouper in the south Atlantic: An investigation
of fishery management. Master of Environmental Management Thesis. Nicholas School of the
Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University. 66 pp.

Parker Jr., R.O., 1990. Tagging studies and diver observations of fish populations on live-bottom
reefs of the U.S. southeastern coast. Bulletin of Marine Science 46, 749-760.

Parker Jr., R.O., Dixon, R.L., 1998. Changes in a North Carolina reef fish community after 15
years of intense fishing - Global warming implications. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 127, 908-920.

Parrish, J.D., 1987. The trophic biology of snappers and groupers. In: Polovina, J.J., Ralston, S.
(Ed.), Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado, pp. 405-463.

Pfister, R.P., Goulet, D., 1999. Nonintrusive video technique for in situ sizing of coral reef
fishes. Copeia 1999, 789-793.

Posey, M.H., Ambrose, W.G., 1994. Effects of proximity to an offshore hard-bottom reef on
infaunal abundances. Marine Biology 118, 745-753.

Quattrini, A.M., Ross, S.W., 2006. Fishes associated with North Carolina shelf-edge
hardbottoms and initial assessment of a proposed marine protected area. Bulletin of Marine
Science 79, 137-163.

45
 Final Report 08-FEG-12

Quattrini, A.M., Ross, S.W., Sulak, K.J., Necaise, A.M., Casazza, T.L., Dennis, G.D., 2004.
Marine fishes new to continental United States waters, North Carolina and the Gulf of Mexico.
Southeastern Naturalist 3, 155-172.

Rand, P.S., Taylor, J.C., Eggleston, D.B., 2006. A video method for quantifying size distribution,
density and three dimensional spatial structure of fish spawning aggregations. In: Taylor, J.C.
(Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Reef Fisheries Management. NOAA Professional Paper NMFS
5, Seattle, Washington.

SEDAR10, 2006. Stock Assessment Report South Atlantic Gag Grouper Southeast Data,
Assessment, and Review 485 pp.

SEDAR10 Review Workshop, 2007. Assessment Advisory Report - South Atlantic Gag
Grouper, Reflecting recreational catch correction. 21 pp.

Sedberry, G., Van Dolah, R., 1984. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard bottom
habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the U.S.A. Environmental Biology of Fishes 11, 241-258.

Sedberry, G.R., Pashuk, O., Wyanski, D.M., Stephen, J.A., Weinbach, P., 2006. Spawning
locations for Atlantic reef fishes off the southeastern US. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean
Fisheries Institute 57, 463-514.

Smith, C.L., 1961. Synopsis of biological data on groupers (Epinephelus and allied genera) of
the western North Atlantic. FAO Fish Biology Synopsis 23, 61 pp.

van Rooij, J.M., Videler, J.J., 1996. A simple field method for stereo-photographic length
measurement of free-swimming fish: merits and constraints. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 195, 237-249.

Watson, D., Harvey, E., Anderson, M., Kendrick, G., 2005. A comparison of temperate reef fish
assemblages recorded by three underwater stereo-video techniques. Marine Biology 148, 415-
425.

Wenner, E.L., Knott, D.M., Van Dolah, R.F., Burrell, V.G., 1983. Invertebrate communities
associated with hard bottom habitats in the South Atlantic Bight. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 17, 143-158.

Whitfield, P., Hare, J., David, A., Harter, S., Muñoz, R., Addison, C., 2007. Abundance
estimates of the Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans/miles complex in the Western North
Atlantic. Biological Invasions 9, 53-64.

Whitfield, P.E., Gardner, T., Vives, S.P., Gilligan, M.R., Jr., W.R.C., Ray, G.C., Hare, J.A.,
2002. Biological invasion of the Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans along the Atlantic coast of
North America. Marine Ecology Progress Series 235, 289-297.

Willis, T.J., Millar, R.B., Babcock, R.C., 2000. Detection of spatial variability in relative density
of fishes: comparison of visual census, angling, and baited underwater video. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 198, 249-260.

46