IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0242017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform

Author

Listed:
  • Milton S Love
  • Mary M Nishimoto
  • Scott Clark
  • Li Kui
  • Azivy Aziz
  • David Palandro

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Milton S Love & Mary M Nishimoto & Scott Clark & Li Kui & Azivy Aziz & David Palandro, 2020. "A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242017
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242017
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242017&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0242017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.